As I believe I have mentioned previously, the faulty logic is an implication of shared commonality that grouping such as that implies.
The implication of shared commonality is all on your side, however. I think you are viewing the term from a christian perspective and overestimate the importance of that point of view.
You consider yourself an atheist--but a sizable portion of what a broad swath would classify as "atheists" do not consider themselves as such. And a second portion considers themselves "atheists" but means something more than you would use the broad swath as.
I do not agree that this matters. You've mentioned this point before and I brought up the analogy of someone born in the U.S. who is a U.S. citizen not wanting to call themselves an American. The term fits whether they like it or not.
Using the mere dictionary definition of "atheism" without understanding its innacuracies is the very essence of lacking understanding. I thought you wanted to reduce confusion, not propogate it.
You have not established the existence of inaccuracies in the dictionary definition of "atheism" so you should not refer to them as if you had.
Quite simply, you're wrong.
I can't teach basic linquistic theory to you here. All words are artificial constructs designated to communicate certain ideas. While they should have the same broad meaning, their specific meaning is mutable--and each specific meaning is no less "correct" than any others.
You can keep your condescension; I have no reason to believe you could teach basic linguistic theory at all. Your argument is that a sufficiently large number of people use a wrong definition of "atheism" that atheists should just accept it and find a new word. I do not accept this assertion. I suspect that a large number of christians use the word incorrectly but that is of no importance.
In that case, as your foci is understanding, I would note that "atheism" is a word that is either differently defined by many persons, or mis-used by a near-majority of the population.
I'm not sure that the number of people mis-using it is a large as you might think. I would suspect that the majority of people don't think about it or use it at all.
It may be best to consider use of a different word, when pressed to give a one-word answer to "what is your religion?" (I suggest "none" before "atheism", or "I don't have a religion" instead of "I'm an atheist"--the latter implies that atheism is a thing that can define you, and the unmodified term has the danger of being misunderstood.)
I find it bizarre that you suggest this to me in light of the fact that in the past you have been the one saying that atheism is a religion and I have said repeatedly that the atheist's answer to "What is your religion?" is "None". But yes, I agree that the "None" is the correct answer, although in practice I often find I have to follow it up with "I'm an atheist" because all I get when I say "None" is a blank, bewildered stare.
As for whether or not atheism is a defining characteristic, I would agree that for most atheists it is not. Atheist is the word that accurately describes whether or not I believe in a god but since the answer is no the subject doesn't generally have a major impact on my life. However, since I often use the term in conversations about religion, when I'm explaining my lack thereof, I do consider it important to use the technical definition.
It is to those who "have no religion at all" that the label of "atheist" is, rightly or wrongly, applied. Perhaps it would be better to divide the definition:
Atheist: (1) A person who does not believe in the existance of divinity.
(2): A person who belongs to no religion because he considers them all to be false, esp. those who believe in the non-existance of divinity.
Definition 2 is too broad as it includes people who believe that a god exists but who do not believe in any existing religion. This contradicts the actual definition of the word which is anyone who lacks a belief in any god. I will not under any circumstances agree to any definition of the word that includes people who possess a belief in one or more gods. Stop wasting time by trying to redefine the word.
Please note that I am using the specific "system of belief" definition of religion. I maintain that, for (2), "atheism is a religion" is valid, if for no other reason than the simple imprecision of language.)
I have already explained that atheism is not a system of belief in a paragraph that you (surprise, surprise) ignored. I will repeat that paragraph now.
The reason that I argue against considering atheism a religion is that a religion is a specific set of beliefs and there is no specific set of beliefs that unites atheists. All atheism is, is a lack of belief. Some atheists don't consider spiritual matters at all. Some think there are spiritual aspects to the universe but that there are no gods. Some are buddhists. Some are humanists. Some believe theism is a threat. Some don't. Some have an open mind, to consider evidence of the existence of a god. Some assert that "there is no god". We are too diverse a group to categorize as a religion. This is my position. If you intend to respond, please respond to my actual position, which is laid out right here. In this paragraph.
While (1) may be the historic, "technical", and even proper usage, (2) seems to be the much more common usage.
I do not accept your assertion that the erroneous definition 2 is the "much more common usage". Until you provide evidence to back up this assertion it is not valid.
In all honesty, I think that one or the other definitons should be changed to a more distinct term: a name for those that believe in the non-existance of god, so that they can stop co-opting the term "atheism" and cluttering up the issue.
I do not believe that you think this because if you did you would not be trying to confuse the meaning of the term. You are doing the very thing that you claim in this paragraph to oppose.
(Of course, there are loads of extant names avalable--"Skeptic", "Humanist", "Bright", "Scientologist" [though the last one, a perfectly sensible word, has been perverted by a money-sucking cult] and a few others. Unfortunately, (2)s are a diverse enough lot that convincing them to agree on a name might be more trouble than its worth, resulting in making it easier to just retire (1) and replace it with "non-theists".)
These words all have specific meanings. "Skeptic" applies to areas far outside religion. "Humanist" is a specific system of belief that not all atheists share so it is inaccurate to use it to describe atheists. "Bright" is a memetic experiment by Richard Dawkins that I personally believe is unlikely to catch on because it is needlessly confrontational. "Scientologist" is an actual religion, a specific set of beliefs that is most definitely not atheistic so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. The term to describe group 2 is "non-religious" and it is perfectly adequate. Co-opting the term "atheist" is nonsensical, especially to replace it with "non-theist".
It's becoming increasingly clear that your objection to using the correct definition of "atheist" is based solely on your view of it as opposing christianity. It is true that believing christianity to be false is a natural result of being an atheist but your discomfort over that is not sufficient reason for us to abandon the term.
Remember that "undiscussed" is not the same as "conceeded." If I concede something, then it can be taken as true for the purposes of this discussion. Please do not take things that I do not respond to as conceded unless I note as such.
As long as you continue to ignore my points I will continue to consider any ignored point to be conceded as to do otherwise would be to accept your refusal to discuss my views while expecting me to concentrate the discussion on yours. If you want a point to not be considered conceded you will at a bare minimum acknowledge the point and that you do not wish to discuss it.
In rebuttal to your counter-example: Your boss does not believe in a god, he beleives that there should be one. Based on just what you said, he will act as if all religions with profess knowledge of a god are wrong, just as he would if he believed their god to be nonexistant.
Wrong. As I stated, he does believe in a god that created the universe. He just does not believe in the christian god. It is common for zealous christians to concentrate only on their conception of "god" but the reality is that there are many different conceptions, including the conception of a god that created the universe but does not take an active day-to-day role in it. This is often referred to as deism. Based on what I said you are correct in that he will treat all organized religions as being wrong but that does not equate to lacking a belief in god. You argue that one must be part of an organized religion to believe in a god and that is simply not true.
This isn't a rebuttal; it's a point of order. You could just have effectively said "I already do."
Every time you willfully misrepresent my position, for example by implying that I am not making a distinction that I clearly have been I will call you on it.
No. I merely stated that as a moral basis which I felt you could find common ground with. My reasons for wanting atheism to be treated as a religion are based largely on my desire to not give atheism an unfair advantage or diadvantage when placed against other religions.
I suspected that this was your real reason, not any supposed concern about atheists being discriminated against. You are assuming your conclusion when you describe atheism as having an unfair advantage when placed against other religions. You should know that assuming your conclusion is a fallacy. I would dispute the idea that atheists have an unfair advantage against religious people on the basis that any government promotion of any religion would discriminate against all other religions. Of course, I have made this point in the past and you simply ignored it as you ignore all of my points.
See the EBT Supreme Court case. Atheists are protected by laws that protect freedom of religion because the Supreme Court decided that the government should not be in the basis of saying what is and is not a religion--and, hence, the measure is effectively "you're a religion if you seek freedoms of religion."
If you are referring to the case you linked to earlier, I saw it and responded to it in a point that you are ignoring. If you are referring to a different case you will need to supply a link. I have already pointed out that atheists do not seek freedom of religion, they are instead protected by the prohibition against passing laws that respect an establishment of religion in the First Amendment. This is yet another point that you continue to ignore.
Have any other missed points you wish a reply to?
My prior posts are full of missed points. I do not realistically expect you to respond to them because you have established a history of simply changing what you claim to be the topic of discussion every time you come across a point to which you cannot respond. If you wish to be taken seriously you will begin responding to every point that is made, even if that response is only to note it and request not to discuss it.
Provide a better source. It was the first one I found that had good dates on the history of the term.
I'm not sure what you mean by "good" but I'm guessing you mean "supports my position".
I don't. I expect people to agree on the broad meaning of words, and to hammer out the specific meanings for themselves as specifics become important to their discussion.
You assert the existence of a "broad meaning" to atheism that includes being against religion and having a strong belief system. I do not agree with your assertion that any such broad meaning exists.
Dictionaries and Atheist organizations do have weight--they just aren't the final say.
Of course they are. Certainly no definition coming from a theist organization has any weight.
Not quite. I assert that "atheism"'s explanatory definition is insufficient for catagorization--a different ball of wax entirely.
And I do not agree with this assertion. The correct definition of atheism is completely descriptive. Your problem is that you want to group all people who lack a belief in god together so that you can generalize about them and you want to use the term "atheism" to describe that group. I do not accept this and will continue to argue against it.
However, I am deviating from the subject at hand--atheism v. agnosticism. I think that you can agree that, if we were to consider atheism a religion, we would also by the same principle have to consider agnosticism a religion as well. Hence, the distinctions between these two words are moot to the larger issue at hand.
Since as you know I do not consider atheism a religion you might as well argue that if I consider atheism a carpet cleaner I would agree that it gets out pet odors just as well as agnosticism does. It's a worthless point that has no bearing on our discussion. I do not agree that the distinction between the words is moot and I will continue to correct you every time you conflate them.
The words mean what they mean. I can see you backpeddling but I don't accept it.
In essence, this branch of the discussion to clarify by what I mean when I say "technical correctness." To repeat myself:
"technical correctness" is so misleading as to be effectively "wrong" for our purposes. It is "technically correct" to call Hindus, Native Americans, and Bhuddists "pagans", but such a broad catagorization lacks understanding and should not be used outside of a few very specific contexts.
Yes, this is the third or fourth time you've posted this analogy. Every time you do I explain that I don't agree that it is a valid analogy. I do not agree that using the correct definition of atheism "lacks understanding" and until you provide evidence to back up your point I will continue to express my disagreement.
Your response did not deal with this, but instead focused on the "real definition" of the word. Please focus your replies to what I said in the post that you are replying-to, so that we do not develop parallell lines of discussion when using a medium so capable of handling simultaneous threads of discussion.
There you go again, acting as though you have some right to decide what gets discussed where. You request that I focus my replies to what you say in the post is particularly comical given your continuing failure to respond to my words. As I said before, you'll be treated as you treat others. As far as I'm concerned, the correct definition of the word is all that matters.
When did it become wrong to direct a conversation to a different topic?
It's not wrong to want to change a topic of discussion. It's wrong to refer to the desired new topic as the point of the discussion as though it were what we were discussing all along.
Not so much ironic as honest. I make no apologies for being a zealous christian--my faith compels me to seek understanding and knowledge. On the other hand, you have repeatedly made statements that lead me to conclude that you have the same kind of zeal towards atheism that I have towards Christianity--and observation that, as I said, I find odd considering your statements that atheism is not a thing solid enough to inspire such zeal.
I do not agree that my statements imply a zeal towards atheism. Can you be more specific about which statements of mine you consider zealous?
Were I attempting to covert you, this would be the point where I would state something similiar to "obviously you're lacking God in your life."
It's just as well you didn't say anything like that. Such a banal statement (the equivalent of "obviously you're lacking blinzorf in your life" to an atheist) would only serve as yet another of those distractions that you find so upsetting.
However, I am not compelled to convert, merely understand, and therefore my observation is simply "you seem to be searching for a cause to 'get religion' over; I submit to you that 'atheism' is not a cause worthy of such zeal by your own definiton of such. Much better foci would be understanding and/or truth.
This statement indicates a lack of understanding of my position. My focus is not on atheism itself but on the meaning of the term. That the term be used accurately is important to me because it is a term that I use to describe myself and I do not want people misinterpreting what I say.
In any case, as evidence of my desire for understanding, I remind you that I have attempted to avoid topics and discussions that can have no further discourse, and I have endeavored to organize this discussion as to bring greater clarity.
Yes, this is your excuse for ignoring every point I make but I don't believe it. You seem to have this belief that because I don't agree with your position, I don't understand it, that if I only understood you I would agree. That is not the case. I understand your position quite well. I just don't agree with it.
As philisophical backing for my stance, in case you find it hard to reconcile with my stated beliefs: God made man intelligent, and the clearest sign of intelligence is being able to argue a cause in which you do not believe.
Unless you have evidence of the existence of a god the "god made man intelligent" part of your backing is nonsensical to me. I will, however, agree that humanity is intelligent. I am curious as to what cause you claim to be arguing that you do not believe in?
No. I re-stated my position that, even though most dictionary definitions of "religion" specifically mention divinity, it is nevertheless proper to consider atheism "a religion." Specifically, I have maintained that public entities should treat Atheism the same as Christianity or Judaism or Wicca or Islam, and I have provided instances and practical applications wherein it is useful to answer questions such as "what is your religion?" with "atheist."
Yes. As I stated in my previous message, I understand your position. I simply do not agree with it and you have no presented any reasons or evidence to back it up. An atheist's correct response to "What is your religion?" is usually "None" but could in some cases be "Buddhist" or "Humanist".
Kindly refresh my memory as to what you consider your last rebuttal to be.
Here I was referring to the First Amendment issue that I have expanded upon in my reply to one of the other branches of this discussion.
If you are referring to my supplied context as to when it is and is not proper to consider "atheism" a "religion", your rebuttal was little more than a repetition of your previous allegation that "atheism is not a religion".
The reason that I argue against considering atheism a religion is that a religion is a specific set of beliefs and there is no specific set of beliefs that unites atheists. All atheism is, is a lack of belief. Some atheists don't consider spiritual matters at all. Some think there are spiritual aspects to the universe but that there are no gods. Some are buddhists. Some are humanists. Some believe theism is a threat. Some don't. Some have an open mind, to consider evidence of the existence of a god. Some assert that "there is no god". We are too diverse a group to categorize as a religion. This is my position. If you intend to respond, please respond to my actual position, which is laid out right here. In this paragraph.
I did a small bit of cursory research, and found a summary of a Supreme Court case, ESA v. Rylander, in which the court found that "religion" should be interpreted very broadly when it comes to the law--and, ergo, my contexts wherein "atheism must be considered a religion."
This is an interesting decision and I admit to giving it only a cursory read over as it is quite late here and I should be sleeping. If you wish to continue to discuss it in response to this message I will be more than happy to read it more thoroughly tomorrow. I think I see where you are coming from, with the quote
"...a review of case law suggests that while some courts include worship of a Supreme Being as an element of "religion," it is not a dispositive factor, and courts have expressly rejected the contention that it is the linchpin factor....If we rule otherwise, universally recognized world belief systems such as Buddhism and Taoism, which do not subscribe to a theistic world-view, would not be consisdered religions."
This quote gives the opinion that theism is not a requirement of religion, something which I would agree with given Buddhism and other religions that are not necessarily theistic. However, it does recognize that religions involve a "belief system", which, for the reasons given in my prior paragraph I do not believe can be applied to atheism. I note that the commentary on this decision echoes your concerns about religious discrimination if atheism is not considered a religion but I stand by my interpretation of the prohibition against "respecting an establishment of religion". Please let me know if you disagree with my interpretation.
I believe that I should add a fourth and fifth context wherein atheism must be considered a religion: Whenever discussing the religious beliefs of a population or the workings of religion in public life; and Whenever civil servants are compelled to self-censor their religion.
The plain truth of the matter is that your myraid of points were, fairly often, the kind of rote repetition and droll verbosity that serves only to cloud the issue. My non-response should not be taken as acceptance--the reasonable matter in discourse when a point you feel to be pertinent is not replied-to is to inquire as to the reply and the stasis. I will note which points I concede, as is proper form.
I have repeated my points because you continue to refuse to respond to them. Until you do I have no choice but to consider them conceded and proceed on that basis. I can't imagine you would object to this because you have complained about my "verbosity". You will certainly be happy to see me not bringing them up over and over.
If there are prior points that you wish me to reply to, kindly denote them (specifically, in quotes or in links) and I will endeavor to respond.
In the interest of responding to your request (the polite thing to do) I will list some of the points you have ignored:
You claimed that weak atheism and agnosticism are the same position "when discussing religious beliefs". This is contradicted by my prior example of my boss, who believes that there must be a god (theist) but that its nature is unknowable (agnostic).
You asked: "However, for the sake of clarity, can you please specify when you are referring to Strong Atheists or disbeliving persons who do not consider themselves atheists?" I have always differentiated between all atheists, weak atheists and strong atheists. Your suggestion otherwise misrepresents my position.
You claimed that your reason for wanting to see atheism treated as a religion was that you were concerned that atheists would be discriminated against because they would not have First Amendment protections. I pointed out that atheists would still be protected by the First Amendment prohibition against making laws that respect an establishment of religion. You never responded to this point.
I'm only listing three points because based on your prior history I have no reason to believe that you will respond to any of my points so I see no reason to type any more than I have.
I did a quick search, and discovered a site [infostations.com] that claims that the modern usage of the term "atheism" (and "theism") dates back only to the time of the French Enlightenment.
Your reference is a christian ministry, hardly a believable source for an objective view on the word.
It does when, prior to a certain period of time (say, the French Enlightenment or thereabouts), there was essentially no Atheism, and it would be fairly easy to research and learn that atheism has spread and become both more popular and more accepted as centuries have passed.
I do not accept your assertion that there was no such thing as atheism before the French Enlightenment. There is no reason to believe that there were no people who lacked a belief in any god prior to that time.
There are differences. For the context of "is atheism a religion", they can be ignored--or, to phrase it better, glossed-over--so that we can discuss the larger issue.
You keep saying this and I keep telling you that I do not agree. Repeating this assertion will not cause me to agree with it.
We are not discussing the finer points of atheism or agnosticism. A common search reveals that approximately half of the definitions of "agnostic" refer specifically to divinty or religion. Ergo, it seems prudent to ignore each other's usage of "atheist" or "agnostic" and instead focus on the larger picture of the discussion.
We are discussing whether or not atheism is a religion, a discussion that cannot proceed unless we agree on the definition of the word "atheism".
I am not, and have not, and will not, ask you to abandon your position on the meanings of the various words--though I will remind you, yet again, that English dictionaries are all descriptive and not proscriptive--that is, they are used best to learn new words or understand unfamiliar ones, not as an authorative source to settle issues of real merit.
Since you do not place any weight on dictionary definitions or on the definition actually used by atheists why do you expect people to use your definition? What reasons can you give for accepting your definition?
Instead, I will simply re-state my suggestion that you cease both your juvenile "corrections" of my use of "agnostic" as "atheist" and we move on to matters of actual substance and not mere tit-for-tate squabbling.
You continue to insult my position and then act as though your should be taken seriously. You will be treated as you treat others; it just something that you're going to have to live with.
You repeatedly assert that the definition of "atheism" is not important to the discussion, an assertion that is not believable in the face of your continuing refusal to accept, for the sake of this discussion, the use of the definition that you consider to be "technically correct". If you honestly considered the matter unimportant you would simply drop your insistence on a definition that has no basis other than your own assertions of its validity.
Your use of atheism is different, but not contradictory, to mine. I believe that you have said that "atheism is not anti-religion", which means that it clearly is not the mere opposite of religion.
That's what contradictory means, to be contrary to.
It is obvious from the context of my original quote that when I said atheism is not "anti-religion" I was referring to it not be opposed to religion, to it not being an attack on religion.
Now, a simple view is to term atheism as a mere inversion of "theism"--instead of "there are gods", "there are no gods." By this term, we could classify Bhuddism, Shinto, and some variants of Humanism as Atheist. And, were we discussing the characteristics of moral systems that do and do not include gods, this would be a fair distinction.
Why do you keep throwing up new definitions of atheism? You have already agreed that the technically correct definition of atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. For someone who keeps complaining about chaos and diversions in this discussion you certainly seem to move the goalposts a lot.
Incidentally, many buddhists, shintoists and humanists are atheists. I think your problem is that you can't stop viewing atheist as a category of belief and atheists as some largely homogenous group that shares a system of beliefs. The only thing that all atheists share is a lack of belief in any god.
However, in the common vernacular, "Atheism" has a more specific meaning than "A religion that doesn't belive in gods." It is commonly understood to include a lack of belief in not only in divine all-powerful beings, but also in souls, reincarnation, and a good deal of other spiritual or theological concepts.
Understood by whom? I do not agree that atheism implies any belief or lack of belief in souls, reincarnation or other spiritual or theological concepts. My girlfriend is an atheist but she believes that there is a spiritual aspect to existence that is beyond science. I don't agree, but that doesn't make her not an atheist.
Using Atheism to mean something more than what it means--by applying it to people who are not atheists and would neither consider themselves atheists nor likely be considered atheists by atheists--strikes me as contributing only to the confusion and upset regarding atheism that you so stridently hope to avoid.
You are the only one who is suggesting using "atheism" to mean more than one it means, to call it a religion as though there were some belief structure that united atheists.
As for your concerns about it applying to people who are not atheists, I have seen no evidence that anyone in this discussion has suggested such a thing. If you believe otherwise, please provide quotes or links to the relevant posts.
Hence, "technical correctness" is so misleading as to be effectively "wrong" for our purposes. It is "technically correct" to call Hindus, Native Americans, and Bhuddists "pagans", but such a broad catagorization lacks understanding and should not be used outside of a few very specific contexts.
What are "our purposes"? My sole purpose in this discussion has been to clarify the definition of atheism so that theists are not mislead about what it means. You are right about it being a broad category; atheists vary tremendously as the only thing they are guaranteed to have in common is a lack of a belief in any gods. You are the one who is trying to group all atheists together. I do not agree that the correct definition of atheism should only be used in a few very specific contexts and you have not provided an reason for me to change my mind.
No. I am merely attempting to bring order to the discussion in hopes that a real understanding can be reached. I think you can see as well as I that neither of us will gain any understanding at all without some order to this chaos.
You keep trying to control the direction that this discussion goes in, claiming that it is chaotic. I do not agree that there is any chaos. I also do not believe that you actually seek understanding, based on your description of me as a zealot (an ironic one since you hold to your own possition with no less zeal than I hold to mine).
I propose that we table, as talked-to-death, my original point--and instead move on to things on which we may be able to actually come to an understanding.... insisting of the use of a definition that you have agreed is incorrect
This appears to be merely a way for you to not respond to any of the points in my last message. Particularly, the parts about your stated reasons for wanting to classify atheism as a religion being debunked and my speculation about your real reasons. Are you abandoning your position on classifying atheism as a religion or are you just trying to avoid the hard questions?
Now, I never agreed that the definition of "atheist" or "atheism" that I was using was wrong--merely that your use was "technically correct", with an immediate note that I felt it to be impoper.
My use contradicts yours, which is why when you describe mine as "technically correct" you describe your own as "technically incorrect". I do not believe you will be able to point to posts you have made in the past where you describe your definition as technically correct.
You describe my use as improper, a description with which I disagree and for which you continue to provide no evidence. It would be an error on your part to assume that I will just ignore your argument by assertion; if you've learned nothing else from this discussion you should have learned that.
"Atheism" is a tricky word to use, because it is an invented word that has both entered the vulgar lexicon and been used as an identifier of a "movement" of sorts, despite that movement's subsequent fractionalization into finer shadings of meaning.
Your assertion that atheism is a "tricky" word appears to be baseless; the word atheism traces back to the Greek "atheos" and I do not see how you can deride it as an "invented word" as it is no more "invented" than any other word. You'll have to explain what you mean by "vulgar lexicon"; the use of the term "vulgar" has a negative connotation that I do not believe you can apply to atheism. You will also need to provide evidence of an atheist "movement". There are atheist organizations, but then there are organizations for stamp collectors and golfers; the mere existence of an organization does not constitute a movement.
I believe you are referring to the following
(I believe that we can both agree that "Agnosticism" and "Weak Atheism" are essentially synonyms. Please state "All Atheists" or "Strong Atheists" if you mean more than mere disbelief or followers of the Atheist creed.)
Now, your respone of denying the first belief is, IMO, at best a technical rebuttal that ignores context; when discussing religious beliefs (or, if you prefer, "the existance of God"), an "agnostic" and a "weak atheist" have essentially the same position for essentially the same reason.
Yes, I disagree with your statement that agnosticism and weak atheism are synonyms on the basis that the two terms have different meanings and that the set of all agnostics is not the same as the set of all weak atheists. These are not merely "technical" differences, they are actual, significant, important differences that cannot be ignored. I have provided evidence to back up my position, evidence which you have made no effort to rebutt and have therefore implicitly accepted. Your attempt to "simplify" matters by ignoring or downplaying these differences is not acceptable in the context of this discussion, which is why no matter how many times you ask me to abandon my position and accept yours I will not do so.
The odd part is your apparantly emotional reaction to the second part of my statement. Perhaps I phrased it too simply; allow me to specify better:
I'm not sure why you claim to believe my reaction to the second statement is emotional. This categorization and the phrase "perhaps I phrased it too simply" imply that my response to your request to abandon the position of accuracy for t
I never claimed that it was irrational to lack a believe in God. Rather, I simply asserted that it was no more rational or irrational to believe or not believe.
I understand your assertion; I just don't agree with it. In the absence of evidence, it is less rational to believe in something than it is to not believe in it. Otherwise, how can a person justify not believing in all religions simultaneously, not to mention unicorns and leprauchauns?
Reason and morality are neither synonyms nor strongly related.
"Moral" may not have been the best word to use; my point was that I am not trying to use the word "irrational" as an insult, merely as a descriptive term. I would however argue that there is a case for a strong relation between reason and morality, based on the works of Kant and other philosophers. This would of course be even more of a digression than where we are now.
Please cite some staistics for the number of people who don't believe in a divine being, who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian divine being, and the number of people who consider themselves atheists.
You are missing the point. "Atheist" is a term that includes people who lack a belief in any god and people who make the positive assertion that there is no god. You wish to exclude the first category, thus reducing the total number of people referred to as "atheist". That this would be the result is not subject to debate since the set of people in the first category is not zero. For example, I am in the first category.
No, you haven't. You have ignored many of my arguments, responded to several with
Which arguments have I ignored?
irrelvenant attacks (why is it relevant AT ALL what I or you believe for the sake of this discussion?)
My beliefs were brought into the discussion by your questions about what my stake was in insisting on the use of the correct definition of "atheism". Your beliefs were brought into the discussion by me as mere speculation about your possible reasons for insisting of the use of a definition that you have agreed is incorrect (even if you use the irrelevant modifier "technically"). You have failed to present a valid argument for the use of your admittedly incorrect definition (your discrimination concerns were dealt with by the First Amendment) so I speculated that you were threatened by the word "atheist". This speculation was fueled primarily by your description of the term as "anti-religion" but also to a small extent by similar discussions I have had with theists who objected to the word.
faulty logic (rational minds can disagree; my disagreeing with you does not make me irrational, even if you are rational)
Your disagreement with me does not make you irrational. I described your behavior patterns as irrational in the sense that they are not based on reason; you did not disagree with this description.
unnecessary inflexibility with regards to the definition of what you claim is a mere word
You have continually failed to describe why it is "necessary" to be "flexible" (inaccurate) about the definition of the word atheist. As you point out later in your post this is the basis of the whole argument, so your objection to my steadfast refusal to abandon my position and adopt yours on the basis of your staggering collection of no arguments at all is surprising.
unfounded allegations of malice at any suggestion on my behalf to clarify issues in an attempt to further the discussion
To paraphrase Arthur Dent, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "clarify" that I wasn't previously aware of. I've explained the basis of my speculation about your motives above and have, in my prior message, invited you give an explanation of those motives.
In the past you claimed that you were concerned that atheists would be discriminated against because they would lack the protection of the "... prohibiting the free
Thank you very much. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who disagrees with what this guy is saying. If you see problems with his arguments you should continue to post; the more voices contributing to the discussion the better.
As an aside, I just looked back to the start of this discussion and it's pretty funny that the whole thing started with someone making an offhand joke about inferring a person's religion based on his choice of toothpaste and someone else responding that he was atheist but still brushed. Being on slashdot, I'm surprised it didn't turn into an argument about whether or not Linux is a religion.:)
"unimpeachable defensiblity" is not something that mere absence of evidence can never give.
In the lack of any evidence of the existence of any god, a lack of belief in such is not open to rational attack. If you dispute this, launch your attack. Explain to us why it is irrational to lack a belief in any god.
Organized or not, Strong or Weak, Atheism is an answer to a religious question
You say that as though the fact that "I lack a belief in any god" is an answer to the question "do you believe in in god?" means that atheism is a religion. Naturally, this is foolish. "I lack an interest in baseball" is an answer to the question "Of what baseball team are you a fan?" but that doesn't mean that an "abaseballist" (to coin a term that I'm sure will catch on fast) is just another type of fan.
and secular civilization simply cannot determine one answer's worth when balanced against another
Secular/Atheist civilization can determine the relative value of belief versus lack of belief by seeing which position matches objective reality, the only realm in which civilization operates.
That's an ad hominem attack that doesn't even attempt to refute my point.
You don't have a point. In the message to which I replied you said "While technically accurate, in common usage it's foolish to do so and is only done as a gimmicky way to allow the minor religion to count far more than logic and reason accredit them for." You assert that it is foolish to use the correct definition of atheism and erroneously refer to it as a "minor religion" even though in other messages you have admitted that it is not. You do not provide any evidence or reason behind your assertion but instead just expect everyone to accept it because you have spoken. I have explained to you repeatedly that I, and most atheists, do not simply accept assertions without evidence. If we did, we'd probably be theists.
I am actualy very curious as to how many people identify themselves as atheists, agnostics, "disbelievers", 'undecided', and just about any answer you could give to "what religion are you?"
It would be interesting to do an actual honest study of how many people lack a belief in any god but it would be hard to accurately count the people who don't actually follow the teachings of any religion but still list themselves as "christian" to fit in and avoid conflict as well as those who actively disbelieve but still attend a church because they have no choice (in the case of kids having to obey theist parents) or fear persecution (particularly in countries with official religions).
I said it was "technically acccurate." As in, "sure, it's technically accurate to call Hindus Pagans, but it's a useless overextension for modern discourse."
Your analogy is defective. You fail to specify how it is a "useless overextension" to correctly count anyone who doesn't believe in god as an atheist. The only reasonable conclusion from your continued refusal to accept the true number of atheists in the world is that you are threatened by the fact that an increasingly large number of people do not believe in your god or indeed in any god and by the fact that these people are doing just fine without those beliefs. If you believe you have been misjudged then this is your opportunity to explain in detail why you have a problem with all of the people who lack a belief in any god being correctly identified as atheists.
By your definition, the government would count people who attend church every day with their children but don't really believe as atheists, even though said persons would never identify themselves as atheists.
These people are atheists; how they choose to identify themselves is irrelevant. If you were born in the United States and were a U.S. citizen but did not wish to refer to yourself as "American" it would not change the truth of what you were. Atheists who hide the
We have laws that prohibit religious organizations from unduly affecting government, and laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion. I believe that these laws should apply to Atheists and Atheist organizations, and I wholly suspect that you do so as well.
I've already explained that we atheists are protected by the "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" part of the First Amendment and therefore do not need to lie about our position to avoid being discriminated against. Such a lie benefits only the theists.
Defining "religion" as "a catagory the government puts you in based on your stated belief system" instead of "an organized belief system" is easy enough,
Easy enough, but also irrational and done only with the agenda of giving people the impression that organized religions enjoy the same unimpeachable defensibilty associated with the absence of a belief in gods. Not a valid or useful definition at all.
and defining "atheism" as "the religion of those that believe in no gods" instead of "the absence of an organized belief system" is equally valid.
Well, "0 == 0" is true so I suppose you could say that both of your redefinitions are equally valid. They're still not worth taking seriously. You also use the phrase "the absence of an organized belief system" as though that were the true definition of atheism, when in fact you know it is actually "the lack of belief in any gods".
(On a side point, saying that all who don't believe in God are atheists is like saying that all who aren't Christians are Pagans. While technically accurate, in common usage it's foolish to do so and is only done as a gimmicky way to allow the minor religion to count far more than logic and reason accredit them for.)
Translation: I am threatened by the word "atheism" and don't want people to realize just how many atheists there are out there so I'll try to classify them as just another religion and hope nobody pays too much attention to the utter invalidity of all of my arguments.
Your attempt to subtlely describe atheism as a "minor religion" is noted and rejected. It is, however, good that you acknowledge that is is accurate to say that all those who don't believe in a god are atheists.
As such, there is a distinct difference between the absence of any belief and the belief that there is no God, who is "one who denies the existance of a God", they're totally different, with the former describing me and the latter describing an atheist.
Actually, they are distinctly different positions as you say but both of them are atheistic. See here for details.
You appear to be missing the point. The bible, being nothing more than a collection of bronze age myths, has no bearing on reality. I realize that a lot of people disagree with me, but they lack evidence and cannot explain why they base their life on the bible instead of the torah or the koran or Homer's Odyssey.
I'm sure your references are excellent for someone who has already made the decision to live their lives around a book written by people so amazingly primitive that they didn't even know the world was round.
The problem is not that you believe in the bible, it's that you assume that everyone else does and should therefore care what it says. As long as we're sharing references, may I suggest Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith and The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.
It does not! The worst you could say about me based upon that -- maybe, if you're really inclined to be uncharitable, given the fact that it was a single sentence of 8 words - is that I'm extremely confident about what I'm saying. That's not proselytizing!
Proselytizing christianity is inducing someone to convert to that religion. You claim that telling people that anyone who is not christian "needs to repent and become a christian" does not fit this description. It's hard to tell if you honestly don't see how that sort of thing comes off or if you just find it disadvantageous to admit to what you are doing. Certainly your suggestion that the number of words you used has any relevance does not reflect well on you.
Either way, it is what it is and at least one person (who happened to have mod points) agrees.
I'll freely admit that my post didn't deserve the "Insightful" bit. There's nothing earth-shattering in that one sentence of 8 words. But "Flamebait"? Please. That's just as silly. If you don't know how to moderate it, then please just don't moderate it at all. Thanks!
I can see how someone might find christian prosletyzing insulting, which would fall under the "Flamebait" category. Hope this helps.
Pornography is evil because it has a single purpose. That purpose is evil because Jesus says so: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Adultery is evil ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"); therefore lust is evil; therefore pornography - which is intended to stir up lust - is evil.
This assumes that the bible matters. That's quite an assumption, unless you have some evidence...?
Lust is the driver behind pornography, Lust to have something (sex), which God created for intimacy inside of marriage outside of marriage. The lack of self-control in fulfilling that lust in any of many different ways (pornography is only one) removes our ability to enjoy the very thing we desire. It is our own evil desire (inside of every one of us) that feeds lust and draws us into the traps of pornography where nothing ever satisfies. Here is one of the problems with lust: When we attempt to fulfill this lust apart from Gods design it is like chasing the wind. One picture is never enough. Having sex once outside of marriage is never enough, nothing is enough. As soon as one desire is fulfilled another comes. God wants us to embrace our sexuality and accept the plan He had when He created sex. Battling lust is part of how we do that!
This is an interesting theory. Where's your evidence?
I was merely noting the odd nature of your position with regards to being called an atheist. The implication that Atheism *IS* a religion (rather than merely falling under some definitions of religion for certain purposes and contexts) is one that you are making, not me.
No, when you say "For someone who claims that Atheism is merely a word and not a creed or religion, you seem awfuly admant about not being called anything else." you are implying that my position on the subject means I privately consider atheism a creed or religion. You keep trying to put words in my mouth, as in the paragraph to which I am replying, but I have made my position on the subject clear.
Note that I have not said that the USA's government is not atheist; merely that it is no more "atheist" than it is "christian."
I know that this is what you keep saying; it doesn't change the fact that government (as an organization) is completely atheist and not at all christian. The people who serve in government come from various religions and lacks thereof, but the organization itself has no religious beliefs.
Your actions, in general, are consistent with a classification of "atheism" as a religion/creed/party of some strong sort.
This is not the first time you've made this assertion. Let's see some evidence. In what way are my actions consistent with classifying atheism as a religion/creed/party? What religion concerns itself with the importance of using the word "atheism" accurately? What's the URL to the creed I am espousing? Who's the leader of the party that follows that creed?
You certain stick to your opinions with the same zeal as any Christian I've met.
You imply that only Christians have strong opinions. This is obviously false.
While I can appreciate a desire for accuracy, my experience has been that accuracy in such matters is best served by putting aside terms which the parties have "religious-like" opinions on and focusing on the root of what is being discussed.
You have argued that the term "atheism" should not be used to describe weak atheism and I have argued that it should. It is unsurprising that your "solution" is to abandon the term "atheism", which just coincidentally matches your position. Naturally, you don't say how this will make things more "accurate". You just continue to assume your conclusions and argue by assertion. I continue to be unimpressed, and unmoved.
Slashdot Mirror
As I believe I have mentioned previously, the faulty logic is an implication of shared commonality that grouping such as that implies.
The implication of shared commonality is all on your side, however. I think you are viewing the term from a christian perspective and overestimate the importance of that point of view.
You consider yourself an atheist--but a sizable portion of what a broad swath would classify as "atheists" do not consider themselves as such. And a second portion considers themselves "atheists" but means something more than you would use the broad swath as.
I do not agree that this matters. You've mentioned this point before and I brought up the analogy of someone born in the U.S. who is a U.S. citizen not wanting to call themselves an American. The term fits whether they like it or not.
Using the mere dictionary definition of "atheism" without understanding its innacuracies is the very essence of lacking understanding. I thought you wanted to reduce confusion, not propogate it.
You have not established the existence of inaccuracies in the dictionary definition of "atheism" so you should not refer to them as if you had.
Quite simply, you're wrong.
I can't teach basic linquistic theory to you here. All words are artificial constructs designated to communicate certain ideas. While they should have the same broad meaning, their specific meaning is mutable--and each specific meaning is no less "correct" than any others.
You can keep your condescension; I have no reason to believe you could teach basic linguistic theory at all. Your argument is that a sufficiently large number of people use a wrong definition of "atheism" that atheists should just accept it and find a new word. I do not accept this assertion. I suspect that a large number of christians use the word incorrectly but that is of no importance.
In that case, as your foci is understanding, I would note that "atheism" is a word that is either differently defined by many persons, or mis-used by a near-majority of the population.
I'm not sure that the number of people mis-using it is a large as you might think. I would suspect that the majority of people don't think about it or use it at all.
It may be best to consider use of a different word, when pressed to give a one-word answer to "what is your religion?" (I suggest "none" before "atheism", or "I don't have a religion" instead of "I'm an atheist"--the latter implies that atheism is a thing that can define you, and the unmodified term has the danger of being misunderstood.)
I find it bizarre that you suggest this to me in light of the fact that in the past you have been the one saying that atheism is a religion and I have said repeatedly that the atheist's answer to "What is your religion?" is "None". But yes, I agree that the "None" is the correct answer, although in practice I often find I have to follow it up with "I'm an atheist" because all I get when I say "None" is a blank, bewildered stare.
As for whether or not atheism is a defining characteristic, I would agree that for most atheists it is not. Atheist is the word that accurately describes whether or not I believe in a god but since the answer is no the subject doesn't generally have a major impact on my life. However, since I often use the term in conversations about religion, when I'm explaining my lack thereof, I do consider it important to use the technical definition.
It is to those who "have no religion at all" that the label of "atheist" is, rightly or wrongly, applied. Perhaps it would be better to divide the definition:
Atheist: (1) A person who does not believe in the existance of divinity. (2): A person who belongs to no religion because he considers them all to be false, esp. those who believe in the non-existance of divinity.
Definition 2 is too broad as it includes people who believe that a god exists but who do not believe in any existing religion. This contradicts the actual definition of the word which is anyone who lacks a belief in any god. I will not under any circumstances agree to any definition of the word that includes people who possess a belief in one or more gods. Stop wasting time by trying to redefine the word.
Please note that I am using the specific "system of belief" definition of religion. I maintain that, for (2), "atheism is a religion" is valid, if for no other reason than the simple imprecision of language.)
I have already explained that atheism is not a system of belief in a paragraph that you (surprise, surprise) ignored. I will repeat that paragraph now.
The reason that I argue against considering atheism a religion is that a religion is a specific set of beliefs and there is no specific set of beliefs that unites atheists. All atheism is, is a lack of belief. Some atheists don't consider spiritual matters at all. Some think there are spiritual aspects to the universe but that there are no gods. Some are buddhists. Some are humanists. Some believe theism is a threat. Some don't. Some have an open mind, to consider evidence of the existence of a god. Some assert that "there is no god". We are too diverse a group to categorize as a religion. This is my position. If you intend to respond, please respond to my actual position, which is laid out right here. In this paragraph.
While (1) may be the historic, "technical", and even proper usage, (2) seems to be the much more common usage.
I do not accept your assertion that the erroneous definition 2 is the "much more common usage". Until you provide evidence to back up this assertion it is not valid.
In all honesty, I think that one or the other definitons should be changed to a more distinct term: a name for those that believe in the non-existance of god, so that they can stop co-opting the term "atheism" and cluttering up the issue.
I do not believe that you think this because if you did you would not be trying to confuse the meaning of the term. You are doing the very thing that you claim in this paragraph to oppose.
(Of course, there are loads of extant names avalable--"Skeptic", "Humanist", "Bright", "Scientologist" [though the last one, a perfectly sensible word, has been perverted by a money-sucking cult] and a few others. Unfortunately, (2)s are a diverse enough lot that convincing them to agree on a name might be more trouble than its worth, resulting in making it easier to just retire (1) and replace it with "non-theists".)
These words all have specific meanings. "Skeptic" applies to areas far outside religion. "Humanist" is a specific system of belief that not all atheists share so it is inaccurate to use it to describe atheists. "Bright" is a memetic experiment by Richard Dawkins that I personally believe is unlikely to catch on because it is needlessly confrontational. "Scientologist" is an actual religion, a specific set of beliefs that is most definitely not atheistic so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. The term to describe group 2 is "non-religious" and it is perfectly adequate. Co-opting the term "atheist" is nonsensical, especially to replace it with "non-theist".
It's becoming increasingly clear that your objection to using the correct definition of "atheist" is based solely on your view of it as opposing christianity. It is true that believing christianity to be false is a natural result of being an atheist but your discomfort over that is not sufficient reason for us to abandon the term.
Remember that "undiscussed" is not the same as "conceeded." If I concede something, then it can be taken as true for the purposes of this discussion. Please do not take things that I do not respond to as conceded unless I note as such.
As long as you continue to ignore my points I will continue to consider any ignored point to be conceded as to do otherwise would be to accept your refusal to discuss my views while expecting me to concentrate the discussion on yours. If you want a point to not be considered conceded you will at a bare minimum acknowledge the point and that you do not wish to discuss it.
In rebuttal to your counter-example: Your boss does not believe in a god, he beleives that there should be one. Based on just what you said, he will act as if all religions with profess knowledge of a god are wrong, just as he would if he believed their god to be nonexistant.
Wrong. As I stated, he does believe in a god that created the universe. He just does not believe in the christian god. It is common for zealous christians to concentrate only on their conception of "god" but the reality is that there are many different conceptions, including the conception of a god that created the universe but does not take an active day-to-day role in it. This is often referred to as deism. Based on what I said you are correct in that he will treat all organized religions as being wrong but that does not equate to lacking a belief in god. You argue that one must be part of an organized religion to believe in a god and that is simply not true.
This isn't a rebuttal; it's a point of order. You could just have effectively said "I already do."
Every time you willfully misrepresent my position, for example by implying that I am not making a distinction that I clearly have been I will call you on it.
No. I merely stated that as a moral basis which I felt you could find common ground with. My reasons for wanting atheism to be treated as a religion are based largely on my desire to not give atheism an unfair advantage or diadvantage when placed against other religions.
I suspected that this was your real reason, not any supposed concern about atheists being discriminated against. You are assuming your conclusion when you describe atheism as having an unfair advantage when placed against other religions. You should know that assuming your conclusion is a fallacy. I would dispute the idea that atheists have an unfair advantage against religious people on the basis that any government promotion of any religion would discriminate against all other religions. Of course, I have made this point in the past and you simply ignored it as you ignore all of my points.
See the EBT Supreme Court case. Atheists are protected by laws that protect freedom of religion because the Supreme Court decided that the government should not be in the basis of saying what is and is not a religion--and, hence, the measure is effectively "you're a religion if you seek freedoms of religion."
If you are referring to the case you linked to earlier, I saw it and responded to it in a point that you are ignoring. If you are referring to a different case you will need to supply a link. I have already pointed out that atheists do not seek freedom of religion, they are instead protected by the prohibition against passing laws that respect an establishment of religion in the First Amendment. This is yet another point that you continue to ignore.
Have any other missed points you wish a reply to?
My prior posts are full of missed points. I do not realistically expect you to respond to them because you have established a history of simply changing what you claim to be the topic of discussion every time you come across a point to which you cannot respond. If you wish to be taken seriously you will begin responding to every point that is made, even if that response is only to note it and request not to discuss it.
Provide a better source. It was the first one I found that had good dates on the history of the term.
I'm not sure what you mean by "good" but I'm guessing you mean "supports my position".
I don't. I expect people to agree on the broad meaning of words, and to hammer out the specific meanings for themselves as specifics become important to their discussion.
You assert the existence of a "broad meaning" to atheism that includes being against religion and having a strong belief system. I do not agree with your assertion that any such broad meaning exists.
Dictionaries and Atheist organizations do have weight--they just aren't the final say.
Of course they are. Certainly no definition coming from a theist organization has any weight.
Not quite. I assert that "atheism"'s explanatory definition is insufficient for catagorization--a different ball of wax entirely.
And I do not agree with this assertion. The correct definition of atheism is completely descriptive. Your problem is that you want to group all people who lack a belief in god together so that you can generalize about them and you want to use the term "atheism" to describe that group. I do not accept this and will continue to argue against it.
However, I am deviating from the subject at hand--atheism v. agnosticism. I think that you can agree that, if we were to consider atheism a religion, we would also by the same principle have to consider agnosticism a religion as well. Hence, the distinctions between these two words are moot to the larger issue at hand.
Since as you know I do not consider atheism a religion you might as well argue that if I consider atheism a carpet cleaner I would agree that it gets out pet odors just as well as agnosticism does. It's a worthless point that has no bearing on our discussion. I do not agree that the distinction between the words is moot and I will continue to correct you every time you conflate them.
Not as you seem to understand it.
The words mean what they mean. I can see you backpeddling but I don't accept it.
In essence, this branch of the discussion to clarify by what I mean when I say "technical correctness." To repeat myself:
"technical correctness" is so misleading as to be effectively "wrong" for our purposes. It is "technically correct" to call Hindus, Native Americans, and Bhuddists "pagans", but such a broad catagorization lacks understanding and should not be used outside of a few very specific contexts.
Yes, this is the third or fourth time you've posted this analogy. Every time you do I explain that I don't agree that it is a valid analogy. I do not agree that using the correct definition of atheism "lacks understanding" and until you provide evidence to back up your point I will continue to express my disagreement.
Your response did not deal with this, but instead focused on the "real definition" of the word. Please focus your replies to what I said in the post that you are replying-to, so that we do not develop parallell lines of discussion when using a medium so capable of handling simultaneous threads of discussion.
There you go again, acting as though you have some right to decide what gets discussed where. You request that I focus my replies to what you say in the post is particularly comical given your continuing failure to respond to my words. As I said before, you'll be treated as you treat others. As far as I'm concerned, the correct definition of the word is all that matters.
When did it become wrong to direct a conversation to a different topic?
It's not wrong to want to change a topic of discussion. It's wrong to refer to the desired new topic as the point of the discussion as though it were what we were discussing all along.
Not so much ironic as honest. I make no apologies for being a zealous christian--my faith compels me to seek understanding and knowledge. On the other hand, you have repeatedly made statements that lead me to conclude that you have the same kind of zeal towards atheism that I have towards Christianity--and observation that, as I said, I find odd considering your statements that atheism is not a thing solid enough to inspire such zeal.
I do not agree that my statements imply a zeal towards atheism. Can you be more specific about which statements of mine you consider zealous?
Were I attempting to covert you, this would be the point where I would state something similiar to "obviously you're lacking God in your life."
It's just as well you didn't say anything like that. Such a banal statement (the equivalent of "obviously you're lacking blinzorf in your life" to an atheist) would only serve as yet another of those distractions that you find so upsetting.
However, I am not compelled to convert, merely understand, and therefore my observation is simply "you seem to be searching for a cause to 'get religion' over; I submit to you that 'atheism' is not a cause worthy of such zeal by your own definiton of such. Much better foci would be understanding and/or truth.
This statement indicates a lack of understanding of my position. My focus is not on atheism itself but on the meaning of the term. That the term be used accurately is important to me because it is a term that I use to describe myself and I do not want people misinterpreting what I say.
In any case, as evidence of my desire for understanding, I remind you that I have attempted to avoid topics and discussions that can have no further discourse, and I have endeavored to organize this discussion as to bring greater clarity.
Yes, this is your excuse for ignoring every point I make but I don't believe it. You seem to have this belief that because I don't agree with your position, I don't understand it, that if I only understood you I would agree. That is not the case. I understand your position quite well. I just don't agree with it.
As philisophical backing for my stance, in case you find it hard to reconcile with my stated beliefs: God made man intelligent, and the clearest sign of intelligence is being able to argue a cause in which you do not believe.
Unless you have evidence of the existence of a god the "god made man intelligent" part of your backing is nonsensical to me. I will, however, agree that humanity is intelligent. I am curious as to what cause you claim to be arguing that you do not believe in?
No. I re-stated my position that, even though most dictionary definitions of "religion" specifically mention divinity, it is nevertheless proper to consider atheism "a religion." Specifically, I have maintained that public entities should treat Atheism the same as Christianity or Judaism or Wicca or Islam, and I have provided instances and practical applications wherein it is useful to answer questions such as "what is your religion?" with "atheist."
...a review of case law suggests that while some courts include worship of a Supreme Being as an element of "religion," it is not a dispositive factor, and courts have expressly rejected the contention that it is the linchpin factor. ...If we rule otherwise, universally recognized world belief systems such as Buddhism and Taoism, which do not subscribe to a theistic world-view, would not be consisdered religions."
Yes. As I stated in my previous message, I understand your position. I simply do not agree with it and you have no presented any reasons or evidence to back it up. An atheist's correct response to "What is your religion?" is usually "None" but could in some cases be "Buddhist" or "Humanist".
Kindly refresh my memory as to what you consider your last rebuttal to be.
Here I was referring to the First Amendment issue that I have expanded upon in my reply to one of the other branches of this discussion.
If you are referring to my supplied context as to when it is and is not proper to consider "atheism" a "religion", your rebuttal was little more than a repetition of your previous allegation that "atheism is not a religion".
The reason that I argue against considering atheism a religion is that a religion is a specific set of beliefs and there is no specific set of beliefs that unites atheists. All atheism is, is a lack of belief. Some atheists don't consider spiritual matters at all. Some think there are spiritual aspects to the universe but that there are no gods. Some are buddhists. Some are humanists. Some believe theism is a threat. Some don't. Some have an open mind, to consider evidence of the existence of a god. Some assert that "there is no god". We are too diverse a group to categorize as a religion. This is my position. If you intend to respond, please respond to my actual position, which is laid out right here. In this paragraph.
I did a small bit of cursory research, and found a summary of a Supreme Court case, ESA v. Rylander, in which the court found that "religion" should be interpreted very broadly when it comes to the law--and, ergo, my contexts wherein "atheism must be considered a religion."
This is an interesting decision and I admit to giving it only a cursory read over as it is quite late here and I should be sleeping. If you wish to continue to discuss it in response to this message I will be more than happy to read it more thoroughly tomorrow. I think I see where you are coming from, with the quote
"
This quote gives the opinion that theism is not a requirement of religion, something which I would agree with given Buddhism and other religions that are not necessarily theistic. However, it does recognize that religions involve a "belief system", which, for the reasons given in my prior paragraph I do not believe can be applied to atheism. I note that the commentary on this decision echoes your concerns about religious discrimination if atheism is not considered a religion but I stand by my interpretation of the prohibition against "respecting an establishment of religion". Please let me know if you disagree with my interpretation.
I believe that I should add a fourth and fifth context wherein atheism must be considered a religion: Whenever discussing the religious beliefs of a population or the workings of religion in public life; and Whenever civil servants are compelled to self-censor their religion.
I do not agree that atheism
I have repeated my points because you continue to refuse to respond to them. Until you do I have no choice but to consider them conceded and proceed on that basis. I can't imagine you would object to this because you have complained about my "verbosity". You will certainly be happy to see me not bringing them up over and over.
If there are prior points that you wish me to reply to, kindly denote them (specifically, in quotes or in links) and I will endeavor to respond.
In the interest of responding to your request (the polite thing to do) I will list some of the points you have ignored:
I'm only listing three points because based on your prior history I have no reason to believe that you will respond to any of my points so I see no reason to type any more than I have.
I did a quick search, and discovered a site [infostations.com] that claims that the modern usage of the term "atheism" (and "theism") dates back only to the time of the French Enlightenment.
Your reference is a christian ministry, hardly a believable source for an objective view on the word.
It does when, prior to a certain period of time (say, the French Enlightenment or thereabouts), there was essentially no Atheism, and it would be fairly easy to research and learn that atheism has spread and become both more popular and more accepted as centuries have passed.
I do not accept your assertion that there was no such thing as atheism before the French Enlightenment. There is no reason to believe that there were no people who lacked a belief in any god prior to that time.
There are differences. For the context of "is atheism a religion", they can be ignored--or, to phrase it better, glossed-over--so that we can discuss the larger issue.
You keep saying this and I keep telling you that I do not agree. Repeating this assertion will not cause me to agree with it.
We are not discussing the finer points of atheism or agnosticism. A common search reveals that approximately half of the definitions of "agnostic" refer specifically to divinty or religion. Ergo, it seems prudent to ignore each other's usage of "atheist" or "agnostic" and instead focus on the larger picture of the discussion.
We are discussing whether or not atheism is a religion, a discussion that cannot proceed unless we agree on the definition of the word "atheism".
I am not, and have not, and will not, ask you to abandon your position on the meanings of the various words--though I will remind you, yet again, that English dictionaries are all descriptive and not proscriptive--that is, they are used best to learn new words or understand unfamiliar ones, not as an authorative source to settle issues of real merit.
Since you do not place any weight on dictionary definitions or on the definition actually used by atheists why do you expect people to use your definition? What reasons can you give for accepting your definition?
Instead, I will simply re-state my suggestion that you cease both your juvenile "corrections" of my use of "agnostic" as "atheist" and we move on to matters of actual substance and not mere tit-for-tate squabbling.
You continue to insult my position and then act as though your should be taken seriously. You will be treated as you treat others; it just something that you're going to have to live with.
You repeatedly assert that the definition of "atheism" is not important to the discussion, an assertion that is not believable in the face of your continuing refusal to accept, for the sake of this discussion, the use of the definition that you consider to be "technically correct". If you honestly considered the matter unimportant you would simply drop your insistence on a definition that has no basis other than your own assertions of its validity.
Your use of atheism is different, but not contradictory, to mine. I believe that you have said that "atheism is not anti-religion", which means that it clearly is not the mere opposite of religion.
That's what contradictory means, to be contrary to.
It is obvious from the context of my original quote that when I said atheism is not "anti-religion" I was referring to it not be opposed to religion, to it not being an attack on religion.
Now, a simple view is to term atheism as a mere inversion of "theism"--instead of "there are gods", "there are no gods." By this term, we could classify Bhuddism, Shinto, and some variants of Humanism as Atheist. And, were we discussing the characteristics of moral systems that do and do not include gods, this would be a fair distinction.
Why do you keep throwing up new definitions of atheism? You have already agreed that the technically correct definition of atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. For someone who keeps complaining about chaos and diversions in this discussion you certainly seem to move the goalposts a lot.
Incidentally, many buddhists, shintoists and humanists are atheists. I think your problem is that you can't stop viewing atheist as a category of belief and atheists as some largely homogenous group that shares a system of beliefs. The only thing that all atheists share is a lack of belief in any god.
However, in the common vernacular, "Atheism" has a more specific meaning than "A religion that doesn't belive in gods." It is commonly understood to include a lack of belief in not only in divine all-powerful beings, but also in souls, reincarnation, and a good deal of other spiritual or theological concepts.
Understood by whom? I do not agree that atheism implies any belief or lack of belief in souls, reincarnation or other spiritual or theological concepts. My girlfriend is an atheist but she believes that there is a spiritual aspect to existence that is beyond science. I don't agree, but that doesn't make her not an atheist.
Using Atheism to mean something more than what it means--by applying it to people who are not atheists and would neither consider themselves atheists nor likely be considered atheists by atheists--strikes me as contributing only to the confusion and upset regarding atheism that you so stridently hope to avoid.
You are the only one who is suggesting using "atheism" to mean more than one it means, to call it a religion as though there were some belief structure that united atheists.
As for your concerns about it applying to people who are not atheists, I have seen no evidence that anyone in this discussion has suggested such a thing. If you believe otherwise, please provide quotes or links to the relevant posts.
Hence, "technical correctness" is so misleading as to be effectively "wrong" for our purposes. It is "technically correct" to call Hindus, Native Americans, and Bhuddists "pagans", but such a broad catagorization lacks understanding and should not be used outside of a few very specific contexts.
What are "our purposes"? My sole purpose in this discussion has been to clarify the definition of atheism so that theists are not mislead about what it means. You are right about it being a broad category; atheists vary tremendously as the only thing they are guaranteed to have in common is a lack of a belief in any gods. You are the one who is trying to group all atheists together. I do not agree that the correct definition of atheism should only be used in a few very specific contexts and you have not provided an reason for me to change my mind.
No. I am merely attempting to bring order to the discussion in hopes that a real understanding can be reached. I think you can see as well as I that neither of us will gain any understanding at all without some order to this chaos.
You keep trying to control the direction that this discussion goes in, claiming that it is chaotic. I do not agree that there is any chaos. I also do not believe that you actually seek understanding, based on your description of me as a zealot (an ironic one since you hold to your own possition with no less zeal than I hold to mine).
I propose that we table, as talked-to-death, my original point--and instead move on to things on which we may be able to actually come to an understanding. ... insisting of the use of a definition that you have agreed is incorrect
This appears to be merely a way for you to not respond to any of the points in my last message. Particularly, the parts about your stated reasons for wanting to classify atheism as a religion being debunked and my speculation about your real reasons. Are you abandoning your position on classifying atheism as a religion or are you just trying to avoid the hard questions?
Now, I never agreed that the definition of "atheist" or "atheism" that I was using was wrong--merely that your use was "technically correct", with an immediate note that I felt it to be impoper.
My use contradicts yours, which is why when you describe mine as "technically correct" you describe your own as "technically incorrect". I do not believe you will be able to point to posts you have made in the past where you describe your definition as technically correct.
You describe my use as improper, a description with which I disagree and for which you continue to provide no evidence. It would be an error on your part to assume that I will just ignore your argument by assertion; if you've learned nothing else from this discussion you should have learned that.
"Atheism" is a tricky word to use, because it is an invented word that has both entered the vulgar lexicon and been used as an identifier of a "movement" of sorts, despite that movement's subsequent fractionalization into finer shadings of meaning.
Your assertion that atheism is a "tricky" word appears to be baseless; the word atheism traces back to the Greek "atheos" and I do not see how you can deride it as an "invented word" as it is no more "invented" than any other word. You'll have to explain what you mean by "vulgar lexicon"; the use of the term "vulgar" has a negative connotation that I do not believe you can apply to atheism. You will also need to provide evidence of an atheist "movement". There are atheist organizations, but then there are organizations for stamp collectors and golfers; the mere existence of an organization does not constitute a movement.
I believe you are referring to the following
(I believe that we can both agree that "Agnosticism" and "Weak Atheism" are essentially synonyms. Please state "All Atheists" or "Strong Atheists" if you mean more than mere disbelief or followers of the Atheist creed.)
Now, your respone of denying the first belief is, IMO, at best a technical rebuttal that ignores context; when discussing religious beliefs (or, if you prefer, "the existance of God"), an "agnostic" and a "weak atheist" have essentially the same position for essentially the same reason.
Yes, I disagree with your statement that agnosticism and weak atheism are synonyms on the basis that the two terms have different meanings and that the set of all agnostics is not the same as the set of all weak atheists. These are not merely "technical" differences, they are actual, significant, important differences that cannot be ignored. I have provided evidence to back up my position, evidence which you have made no effort to rebutt and have therefore implicitly accepted. Your attempt to "simplify" matters by ignoring or downplaying these differences is not acceptable in the context of this discussion, which is why no matter how many times you ask me to abandon my position and accept yours I will not do so.
The odd part is your apparantly emotional reaction to the second part of my statement. Perhaps I phrased it too simply; allow me to specify better:
I'm not sure why you claim to believe my reaction to the second statement is emotional. This categorization and the phrase "perhaps I phrased it too simply" imply that my response to your request to abandon the position of accuracy for t
I never claimed that it was irrational to lack a believe in God. Rather, I simply asserted that it was no more rational or irrational to believe or not believe.
I understand your assertion; I just don't agree with it. In the absence of evidence, it is less rational to believe in something than it is to not believe in it. Otherwise, how can a person justify not believing in all religions simultaneously, not to mention unicorns and leprauchauns?
Reason and morality are neither synonyms nor strongly related.
"Moral" may not have been the best word to use; my point was that I am not trying to use the word "irrational" as an insult, merely as a descriptive term. I would however argue that there is a case for a strong relation between reason and morality, based on the works of Kant and other philosophers. This would of course be even more of a digression than where we are now.
Please cite some staistics for the number of people who don't believe in a divine being, who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian divine being, and the number of people who consider themselves atheists.
You are missing the point. "Atheist" is a term that includes people who lack a belief in any god and people who make the positive assertion that there is no god. You wish to exclude the first category, thus reducing the total number of people referred to as "atheist". That this would be the result is not subject to debate since the set of people in the first category is not zero. For example, I am in the first category.
No, you haven't. You have ignored many of my arguments, responded to several with
Which arguments have I ignored?
irrelvenant attacks (why is it relevant AT ALL what I or you believe for the sake of this discussion?)
My beliefs were brought into the discussion by your questions about what my stake was in insisting on the use of the correct definition of "atheism". Your beliefs were brought into the discussion by me as mere speculation about your possible reasons for insisting of the use of a definition that you have agreed is incorrect (even if you use the irrelevant modifier "technically"). You have failed to present a valid argument for the use of your admittedly incorrect definition (your discrimination concerns were dealt with by the First Amendment) so I speculated that you were threatened by the word "atheist". This speculation was fueled primarily by your description of the term as "anti-religion" but also to a small extent by similar discussions I have had with theists who objected to the word.
faulty logic (rational minds can disagree; my disagreeing with you does not make me irrational, even if you are rational)
Your disagreement with me does not make you irrational. I described your behavior patterns as irrational in the sense that they are not based on reason; you did not disagree with this description.
unnecessary inflexibility with regards to the definition of what you claim is a mere word
You have continually failed to describe why it is "necessary" to be "flexible" (inaccurate) about the definition of the word atheist. As you point out later in your post this is the basis of the whole argument, so your objection to my steadfast refusal to abandon my position and adopt yours on the basis of your staggering collection of no arguments at all is surprising.
unfounded allegations of malice at any suggestion on my behalf to clarify issues in an attempt to further the discussion
To paraphrase Arthur Dent, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "clarify" that I wasn't previously aware of. I've explained the basis of my speculation about your motives above and have, in my prior message, invited you give an explanation of those motives.
In the past you claimed that you were concerned that atheists would be discriminated against because they would lack the protection of the "... prohibiting the free
Thank you very much. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who disagrees with what this guy is saying. If you see problems with his arguments you should continue to post; the more voices contributing to the discussion the better.
:)
As an aside, I just looked back to the start of this discussion and it's pretty funny that the whole thing started with someone making an offhand joke about inferring a person's religion based on his choice of toothpaste and someone else responding that he was atheist but still brushed. Being on slashdot, I'm surprised it didn't turn into an argument about whether or not Linux is a religion.
"unimpeachable defensiblity" is not something that mere absence of evidence can never give.
In the lack of any evidence of the existence of any god, a lack of belief in such is not open to rational attack. If you dispute this, launch your attack. Explain to us why it is irrational to lack a belief in any god.
Organized or not, Strong or Weak, Atheism is an answer to a religious question
You say that as though the fact that "I lack a belief in any god" is an answer to the question "do you believe in in god?" means that atheism is a religion. Naturally, this is foolish. "I lack an interest in baseball" is an answer to the question "Of what baseball team are you a fan?" but that doesn't mean that an "abaseballist" (to coin a term that I'm sure will catch on fast) is just another type of fan.
and secular civilization simply cannot determine one answer's worth when balanced against another
Secular/Atheist civilization can determine the relative value of belief versus lack of belief by seeing which position matches objective reality, the only realm in which civilization operates.
That's an ad hominem attack that doesn't even attempt to refute my point.
You don't have a point. In the message to which I replied you said "While technically accurate, in common usage it's foolish to do so and is only done as a gimmicky way to allow the minor religion to count far more than logic and reason accredit them for." You assert that it is foolish to use the correct definition of atheism and erroneously refer to it as a "minor religion" even though in other messages you have admitted that it is not. You do not provide any evidence or reason behind your assertion but instead just expect everyone to accept it because you have spoken. I have explained to you repeatedly that I, and most atheists, do not simply accept assertions without evidence. If we did, we'd probably be theists.
I am actualy very curious as to how many people identify themselves as atheists, agnostics, "disbelievers", 'undecided', and just about any answer you could give to "what religion are you?"
It would be interesting to do an actual honest study of how many people lack a belief in any god but it would be hard to accurately count the people who don't actually follow the teachings of any religion but still list themselves as "christian" to fit in and avoid conflict as well as those who actively disbelieve but still attend a church because they have no choice (in the case of kids having to obey theist parents) or fear persecution (particularly in countries with official religions).
I said it was "technically acccurate." As in, "sure, it's technically accurate to call Hindus Pagans, but it's a useless overextension for modern discourse."
Your analogy is defective. You fail to specify how it is a "useless overextension" to correctly count anyone who doesn't believe in god as an atheist. The only reasonable conclusion from your continued refusal to accept the true number of atheists in the world is that you are threatened by the fact that an increasingly large number of people do not believe in your god or indeed in any god and by the fact that these people are doing just fine without those beliefs. If you believe you have been misjudged then this is your opportunity to explain in detail why you have a problem with all of the people who lack a belief in any god being correctly identified as atheists.
By your definition, the government would count people who attend church every day with their children but don't really believe as atheists, even though said persons would never identify themselves as atheists.
These people are atheists; how they choose to identify themselves is irrelevant. If you were born in the United States and were a U.S. citizen but did not wish to refer to yourself as "American" it would not change the truth of what you were. Atheists who hide the
We have laws that prohibit religious organizations from unduly affecting government, and laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion. I believe that these laws should apply to Atheists and Atheist organizations, and I wholly suspect that you do so as well.
I've already explained that we atheists are protected by the "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" part of the First Amendment and therefore do not need to lie about our position to avoid being discriminated against. Such a lie benefits only the theists.
Defining "religion" as "a catagory the government puts you in based on your stated belief system" instead of "an organized belief system" is easy enough,
Easy enough, but also irrational and done only with the agenda of giving people the impression that organized religions enjoy the same unimpeachable defensibilty associated with the absence of a belief in gods. Not a valid or useful definition at all.
and defining "atheism" as "the religion of those that believe in no gods" instead of "the absence of an organized belief system" is equally valid.
Well, "0 == 0" is true so I suppose you could say that both of your redefinitions are equally valid. They're still not worth taking seriously. You also use the phrase "the absence of an organized belief system" as though that were the true definition of atheism, when in fact you know it is actually "the lack of belief in any gods".
(On a side point, saying that all who don't believe in God are atheists is like saying that all who aren't Christians are Pagans. While technically accurate, in common usage it's foolish to do so and is only done as a gimmicky way to allow the minor religion to count far more than logic and reason accredit them for.)
Translation: I am threatened by the word "atheism" and don't want people to realize just how many atheists there are out there so I'll try to classify them as just another religion and hope nobody pays too much attention to the utter invalidity of all of my arguments.
Your attempt to subtlely describe atheism as a "minor religion" is noted and rejected. It is, however, good that you acknowledge that is is accurate to say that all those who don't believe in a god are atheists.
As such, there is a distinct difference between the absence of any belief and the belief that there is no God, who is "one who denies the existance of a God", they're totally different, with the former describing me and the latter describing an atheist.
Actually, they are distinctly different positions as you say but both of them are atheistic. See here for details.
You appear to be missing the point. The bible, being nothing more than a collection of bronze age myths, has no bearing on reality. I realize that a lot of people disagree with me, but they lack evidence and cannot explain why they base their life on the bible instead of the torah or the koran or Homer's Odyssey.
I'm sure your references are excellent for someone who has already made the decision to live their lives around a book written by people so amazingly primitive that they didn't even know the world was round.
The problem is not that you believe in the bible, it's that you assume that everyone else does and should therefore care what it says. As long as we're sharing references, may I suggest Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith and The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.
It does not! The worst you could say about me based upon that -- maybe, if you're really inclined to be uncharitable, given the fact that it was a single sentence of 8 words - is that I'm extremely confident about what I'm saying. That's not proselytizing!
Proselytizing christianity is inducing someone to convert to that religion. You claim that telling people that anyone who is not christian "needs to repent and become a christian" does not fit this description. It's hard to tell if you honestly don't see how that sort of thing comes off or if you just find it disadvantageous to admit to what you are doing. Certainly your suggestion that the number of words you used has any relevance does not reflect well on you.
Either way, it is what it is and at least one person (who happened to have mod points) agrees.
So - if someone asks me a sarcastic question, and I give the only possible reasonable answer, that means I'm prosyletizing?
The fact that you describe your response as the "only possible reasonable answer" indicates that you are prosyletizing. HTH.
I'll freely admit that my post didn't deserve the "Insightful" bit. There's nothing earth-shattering in that one sentence of 8 words. But "Flamebait"? Please. That's just as silly. If you don't know how to moderate it, then please just don't moderate it at all. Thanks!
I can see how someone might find christian prosletyzing insulting, which would fall under the "Flamebait" category. Hope this helps.
Pornography is evil because it has a single purpose. That purpose is evil because Jesus says so: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Adultery is evil ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"); therefore lust is evil; therefore pornography - which is intended to stir up lust - is evil.
This assumes that the bible matters. That's quite an assumption, unless you have some evidence...?
Lust is the driver behind pornography, Lust to have something (sex), which God created for intimacy inside of marriage outside of marriage. The lack of self-control in fulfilling that lust in any of many different ways (pornography is only one) removes our ability to enjoy the very thing we desire. It is our own evil desire (inside of every one of us) that feeds lust and draws us into the traps of pornography where nothing ever satisfies. Here is one of the problems with lust: When we attempt to fulfill this lust apart from Gods design it is like chasing the wind. One picture is never enough. Having sex once outside of marriage is never enough, nothing is enough. As soon as one desire is fulfilled another comes. God wants us to embrace our sexuality and accept the plan He had when He created sex. Battling lust is part of how we do that!
This is an interesting theory. Where's your evidence?
I was merely noting the odd nature of your position with regards to being called an atheist. The implication that Atheism *IS* a religion (rather than merely falling under some definitions of religion for certain purposes and contexts) is one that you are making, not me.
No, when you say "For someone who claims that Atheism is merely a word and not a creed or religion, you seem awfuly admant about not being called anything else." you are implying that my position on the subject means I privately consider atheism a creed or religion. You keep trying to put words in my mouth, as in the paragraph to which I am replying, but I have made my position on the subject clear.
Note that I have not said that the USA's government is not atheist; merely that it is no more "atheist" than it is "christian."
I know that this is what you keep saying; it doesn't change the fact that government (as an organization) is completely atheist and not at all christian. The people who serve in government come from various religions and lacks thereof, but the organization itself has no religious beliefs.
Your actions, in general, are consistent with a classification of "atheism" as a religion/creed/party of some strong sort.
This is not the first time you've made this assertion. Let's see some evidence. In what way are my actions consistent with classifying atheism as a religion/creed/party? What religion concerns itself with the importance of using the word "atheism" accurately? What's the URL to the creed I am espousing? Who's the leader of the party that follows that creed?
You certain stick to your opinions with the same zeal as any Christian I've met.
You imply that only Christians have strong opinions. This is obviously false.
While I can appreciate a desire for accuracy, my experience has been that accuracy in such matters is best served by putting aside terms which the parties have "religious-like" opinions on and focusing on the root of what is being discussed.
You have argued that the term "atheism" should not be used to describe weak atheism and I have argued that it should. It is unsurprising that your "solution" is to abandon the term "atheism", which just coincidentally matches your position. Naturally, you don't say how this will make things more "accurate". You just continue to assume your conclusions and argue by assertion. I continue to be unimpressed, and unmoved.