Is Religious Neutrality a Myth?

[Danger]

What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no diety?

That would be Evo and Cyrus and me—Atheists.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So what happens if you really don't care either way?

Agnostic.

 

[Danger]

Agnostic.

Hmmm... I would consider that more Apathetic than Agnostic. Agnosticism implies that one has given the subject some consideration. If Chris just flat-out doesn't give a **** either way, he hasn't bothered to form an opinion. I have no problem with that whatsoever (more like him, and there'd be a lot less war), but I don't think that he qualifies as Agnostic. More a Mugwump if anything.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That would be Evo and Cyrus and me—Atheists.

Well that's how I use the word, and I thought it was how everyone uses it. However Evo and Klockan3 disagree.

Atehists do not believe there is no diety. They do not recognize any diety, therefore nothing to disbelieve.

Theists are people who believe in a good. Atheists are people who are not theists.

So I address my question to them. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no deity?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Hmmm... I would consider that more Apathetic than Agnostic. Agnosticism implies that one has given the subject some consideration. If Chris just flat-out doesn't give a **** either way, he hasn't bothered to form an opinion. I have no problem with that whatsoever (more like him, and there'd be a lot less war), but I don't think that he qualifies as Agnostic. More a Mugwump if anything.

I don't believe in any gods, more than I don't know if there are any, I just don't care.

People will try to assign you a label that means they can identify more you. I would argue that some atheists ARE religious, as they seem to so dogmatically go after anyone with faith with a morally superior attitude. Likewise people in ('real') religion try to say atheism is a religion so there is still 'hope' of a convertion.

I just find it all a bit tedious.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would consider that more Apathetic than Agnostic. Agnosticism implies that one has given the subject some consideration.

I doubt that you haven't given the subject some consideration, just based on the fact that you are posting in this thread. However, although technically I am an agnostic, I have to admit I don't like the appelation either. It has strayed from its original wider meaning of "not knowing", i.e skeptic. It makes it sound as if there were questions I do know the answer to and only one that I don't.

 

[Danger]

I doubt that you haven't given the subject some consideration, just based on the fact that you are posting in this thread.

My reference was to Chris, not me, and he has since addressed the issue. I have personally been giving the matter considerable thought for a very long time. On behalf of a school friend and I, my father (the preacher) and his father (Chairman of the board of the church) hired Alan Boravoy (chief counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Union) as a representative and took the Essex County Board of Education to court. Result: blew mandatory religious education out of the entire Ontario school system. (I sometimes wonder what those 70-year-old southern Baptist virgins had left in their lives when they couldn't hit little kids with sticks any more.)

 

[GeorgCantor]

So I address my question to them. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no deity?

It starts with ath and ends in eist. What do i win?

 

[Danger]

It starts with ath and ends in eist. What do i win?

In fairness, Jimmy wants responses from Evo and Klockan3. Leave us hold off intervening until they have had chances to explain their standpoints.

 

[Evo]

Well that's how I use the word, and I thought it was how everyone uses it. However Evo and Klockan3 disagree.

So I address my question to them. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no deity?

IMO, Atheists are labled by believers. Since I'm required to find a label that fits the closest, I would be a practical (pragmatic) atheist, I lack belief.

Practical atheism

In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[52] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[53]

I don't know if there is a specific label for someone that doesn't 'believe' in a diety, perhaps theoretical atheist would fit what you are looking for?

Theoretical atheism

Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various forms, above all ontological, gnoseological, and epistemological, but also sometimes psychological and sociological forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[Gokul43201]

This thread is moving way too fast for me. I have not read the last several dozen posts.

Atheism is a faith. Faith in non-existence is no less faith than is faith in existence.

Atheism is not a faith in non-existence. Some atheists may have a faith in non-existence (see next post, for example), but the most general definition of atheism does not involve taking a position of non-existence.

Any claim requires substantiation to gain credibility. Atheism is an unwillingness to place faith in unsubstantiated existence claims. It is NOT a willingness to place faith in unsubstantiated non-existence claims.

 

[jackmell]

Guess I feel I have faith in my belief that Atheism is correct: no God out there, just Astronomy. I don't have absolute proof of course but an overwhelming abundance of circumstantial evidence which put me over the top a long time ago.

 

[brainstorm]

The interesting question sociologically would be why having the status, "atheist," would be stigmatized among some people and celebrated among others and vice-versa. Is this an identity distinction that sustains class divisions with economic functionality, a la Marx? Or is there some other reason people seek to gain social distinction by claiming a certain (non)religious status?

 

[jackmell]

The interesting question sociologically would be why having the status, "atheist," would be stigmatized among some people and celebrated among others and vice-versa. Is this an identity distinction that sustains class divisions with economic functionality, a la Marx? Or is there some other reason people seek to gain social distinction by claiming a certain (non)religious status?

Good point cus' I'll be honest with you: you drop me in the middle of Iran and I'll just flat-out lie about it. All that matters is survival.

 

[brainstorm]

Good point cus' I'll be honest with you: you drop me in the middle of Iran and I'll just flat-out lie about it. All that matters is survival.

And you might start believing the lie and actually end up as a believer. I saw an interview with Ayaan Hirschi Ali following the death threats against South Park artists for depicting the prophet Mohammed. Ali said that everyone should ignore the death threats and make similar depictions in order to show terrorists that the fear isn't working. When she said that, I think I almost saw her interviewer flinch a little. In fact, I think many people do allow themselves to fear religious non-conformity and feign believing for that reason. Fortunately, there is a secular-atheist culture that has evolved, which people can fear failing to conform to - so it's really just a question of what other people around you believe (or don't believe) and conforming to their beliefs or eschewing thereof. At least one thing is clear: fear of non-conformity is the dominant social force globally. Terror has officially won the war on freedom.

 

[Hurkyl]

Terror has officially won the war on freedom.

I wonder if Godwin's law needs to be expanded for the new millenium.

 

[brainstorm]

I wonder if Godwin's law needs to be expanded for the new millenium.

I had to google "Godwin's law" and once I did, it was annoying that you posted about it without explaining why. In fact, this law deserves its own discussion thread because the wikipedia entry explores nothing about why Hitler/nazi comparisons would frequently occur in internet discussions. There's just some kind of implicit assumption that if the comparison occurs so frequently, it must indicate empty application of the comparison. Why doesn't it explicitly state this conclusion, is the question? Similarly, how can the validity of any comparison be assessed on the basis of how frequently the comparison is made? Things are constantly compared to a KG or to absolute zero. Does that indicate that in general, there is no validity in comparing things to these two standardized measures?

moderators: I welcome your discretion to transplant this post and the previous one to a new thread entitled "Godwin's law" since it is a total digression from the thread topic, imo.

 

[drizzle]

Ok.....no, I don't need to reconsider my understanding of the word religion - you do.

No, it's not.

Okay fine, just don't be so dogmatic about your opinion on the matter, that's not how the mind function, IMO, but I know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith" is

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Does that ring something in your head?

Ok, and that doesn't answer my objection...

What is your objection then? You bolded organization so I respond to that! You mean texts then? That's not a necessity to acknowledge religion, any organization would have it too [for example a country would have a set of legislation and constitution to serve its people, etc]…


Think about it this way, you grew up knowing a number of religions X/Y/Z/etc with all its characteristic thus forming your own understanding of religion, thinking that’s how it’s suppose to be like...




P.S. I see you start to use the dots perfectly



This topic is really interesting.

 

[turbo]

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and rejected that as a young teen. When I got to college, I was thrilled to realize that there were whole schools of study regarding religion and philosophy. The little library in our town had very few books on Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc. I spent two years in college pursuing a double-major in English literature and philosophy after ditching chemical engineering.

After spending years intensively studying faith and religion, I accepted agnosticism, without a thorough study of classical agnostics. They were right, and I just knew that they were right. Deism and ritual evaporated for me. I am not an atheist. I cannot be bothered to go to the bother of denying something that I cannot explore.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am not an atheist. I cannot be bothered to go to the bother of denying something that I cannot explore.

Atheism demands no such denial from you. See post #81 above. You are using a very narrow definition that is adopted by only to a subset of atheists.

If that doesn't cut it for you, try this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

 

[brainstorm]

Atheism demands no such denial from you. See post #81 above. You are using a very narrow definition that is adopted by only to a subset of atheists.

Technically, in terms of the etymology, I think this would be true. The prefix, "a," means "without," e.g. asexual reproduction is reproduction without sex. Probably a distinction should be made between atheism and anti-theism. Still, my guess would still be that many of the people who believe that they are simply "without God" in fact have a strong sense of God that they have been indoctrinated with in order to reject it. I mean this in the same sense that a person who was strongly indoctrinated into believing in Santa Claus as a child lives "without Santa Claus" in a different way than someone who was never led to believe that Santa Claus existed in the first place. In other words, how can anyone be merely a-theist instead of anti-theist if they were exposed to theism early in their lives and believed as children? Isn't it then necessary to actively reject belief in God as a childhood superstition?

 

[Evo]

Technically, in terms of the etymology, I think this would be true. The prefix, "a," means "without," e.g. asexual reproduction is reproduction without sex. Probably a distinction should be made between atheism and anti-theism. Still, my guess would still be that many of the people who believe that they are simply "without God" in fact have a strong sense of God that they have been indoctrinated with in order to reject it. I mean this in the same sense that a person who was strongly indoctrinated into believing in Santa Claus as a child lives "without Santa Claus" in a different way than someone who was never led to believe that Santa Claus existed in the first place. In other words, how can anyone be merely a-theist instead of anti-theist if they were exposed to theism early in their lives and believed as children? Isn't it then necessary to actively reject belief in God as a childhood superstition?

No, you realize santa, elves, and the easter bunny are make believe, so it is no longer something you give any thought to.

 

[rootX]

Atheism is an unwillingness to place faith in unsubstantiated existence claims. It is NOT a willingness to place faith in unsubstantiated non-existence claims.

What will be agnostic and religious in terms of

- unwillingness/willingness
- faith
- unsubstantiated non-existence claims
- unsubstantiated existence claims
- substantiated non-existence claims and/or
- substantiated existence claims
?

 

[brainstorm]

No, you realize santa, elves, and the easter bunny are make believe, so it is no longer something you give any thought to.

And yet do you notice how people maintain a subconscious sense of magical economy throughout life? Look at economic politics and you see the idea that if money would just flow the goods would magically be there to buy with the money. People take material privilege for granted, and I suspect it has something to do with their belief in Santa Claus during youth. In other words, they withdraw belief in Santa Claus but continue to believe in the magic. Similarly, I think people withdraw belief in God but continue to believe in underlying organization and/or consistency of the universe.

 

[Cyrus]

Still, my guess would still be that many of the people who believe that they are simply "without God" in fact have a strong sense of God that they have been indoctrinated with in order to reject it.

That's absolutely not true.

In other words, how can anyone be merely a-theist instead of anti-theist if they were exposed to theism early in their lives and believed as children? Isn't it then necessary to actively reject belief in God as a childhood superstition?

I was never exposed to theism at any point in my life. I've been to a childs baptism once, and that's my total extent inside any form of a church - ever (boy were my eyes rolling the whole time too!)

 

[Evo]

And yet do you notice how people maintain a subconscious sense of magical economy throughout life? Look at economic politics and you see the idea that if money would just flow the goods would magically be there to buy with the money. People take material privilege for granted, and I suspect it has something to do with their belief in Santa Claus during youth. In other words, they withdraw belief in Santa Claus but continue to believe in the magic. Similarly, I think people withdraw belief in God but continue to believe in underlying organization and/or consistency of the universe.

brainstom, you really need to stop imposing your personal beliefs upon others. You can say "I feel this way", but please stop guessing what other people think, ok? Let others say what they think.

 

[Danger]

Let others say what they think.

Alright! I think that you are the hottest... with a most awesome... Oh, wait... you meant about religion...

I will say that I would far sooner believe in an egg-bearing bunny than a supreme being. At least that is remotely possible through genetic engineering.

 

[Hurkyl]

Technically, in terms of the etymology...

Etymology is not the ultimate decider of meaning.

That said, the usage of atheism to apply to those who simply lack belief doesn't seem that common -- I don't think I've ever seen atheism used in that particular way except by people who want to use it to label themselves as one who lacks belief. And frequently the meaning is insisted upon even when it's clear that others in the thread are not using the word in that fashion.

 

[brainstorm]

brainstom, you really need to stop imposing your personal beliefs upon others. You can say "I feel this way", but please stop guessing what other people think, ok? Let others say what they think.

People can say whatever they want, and it is impossible to ultimately PROVE that they are being dishonest, if in fact they are. I can, however, hypothesize that someone who is claiming to simply not to believe, i.e. in contrast to actively rejecting, is choosing to frame their rejection in that way to avoid admitting rejection for whatever reason. The reason I hypothesize this is not because I have some personal desire to prove people are theist. It is because I think it obfuscates fully understanding atheism to deny the strong role of religious exposure and knowledge of theism in a-theism or anti-theism. In other words, if people hadn't been exposed to theist ideas and religion in some form, directly or indirectly, how could they even comprehend the idea of a-theism or anti-theism? You have to have some meaning for an idea to reject its existence. If I asked if you believed in flunstles, you would have to ask what they are before answering. If I told you they were subatomic particles 300 levels smaller than quarks, you would begin to have an idea of what they mean in order to accept or reject the possibility of their existence based on whatever reasoning you chose to apply.

Similarly, if you look at God as a physical being, you can reason that S/He/It doesn't exist in terms of physical plausibility. If someone tells you that God doesn't have to exist physically to exist spiritually, you could reason that spiritual things don't exist relative to physical materiality, and only physical existence counts as existence, therefore God doesn't exist. If someone then said that God exists as a subjective belief in the psyche of people who have been exposed to the notion of God, would you still be able to deny God's existence as a facet of human subjectivity? I can't, but it depends on your reasoning process and how you define "existence" and "non-existence."

Nevertheless, my point is that people who deny the existence of subjective experiences of things without any physical referent are fixated on physical/material existence and deny that knowledge of subjective experience is also a form of knowledge. I can know that unicorns don't exist the same way that horses do, physically, but I also know that I have more subjective knowledge of unicorns than I do of flunstles, because I just made up that word two minutes ago. Physically, it may be more likely that particles 300 orders smaller than quarks exist than that unicorns do. Yet it is easier for me to deny the existence of flunstles as a subjective artifact because I have never seen any representation of them beyond this post, whereas I have seen countless depictions and accounts about unicorns throughout my life. Therefore, I conclude that unicorns exist more substantially in human subjectivity than flunstles, and the same is true of God. So unless someone has heard less about God and religion than I have about unicorns, I have a very hard time believing that their atheism or anti-theism doesn't involve a significant amount renunciation of subjective knowledge they have indeed been exposed to, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Gokul43201]

And frequently the meaning is insisted upon even when it's clear that others in the thread are not using the word in that fashion.

You prefer encouraging the usage of a poor definition over correcting it?

 

[Danger]

There was a particularly stupid phrase propagated by Christian soldiers during WWI: "There are no Atheists in foxholes." What an incredibly top-heavy load of ********! Notice that this was stated only by Christians (maybe a random Jew here and there, but I'm unaware of that). They were unwilling to admit that the Atheist hunkered down beside them was far braver than they were because he was willing to face a violent death for his principles without the false benefit of a supernatural crutch and belief that he'd be brought back to some idyllic afterlife. They'd be praying their pointy little asses off, and couldn't understand that a rational being has no need for such things. When the smoke cleared, they would pretend that the Atheist had been praying along with them, in order to hide their own shame. Anyone who entered a foxhole as a true Atheist came out as a true Atheist or not at all. You don't just suddenly abandon your core beliefs (or lack thereof) simply because someone starts chucking lead at you.
I've been in more than a couple of impending-death situations. Some were accidental, some medical, and some wherein an unreasonable individual was actively attempting to kill me. There are some fellow pilots here on PF, and some soldiers, police officers, firefighters, the accident-prone (hi, Evo)... I'm willing to bet (not much, since I'm poor) that most are in agreement with me in one regard: if you have a couple of seconds left to live, you spend those seconds ensuring that you do live... not attempting to make peace with some fictional overseer.
A lot of organized religions have nothing to do with deities. They are political entities with the sole purpose of maintaining and adding to the power and wealth of those who already have both and deserve neither. (I know that there will be objections to that statement, but I defy anyone to tell me that the Pope isn't rich. He might not even have a bank account for all I know, but he can snap his fingers and small countries disappear. Wealth does not necessarily involve coinage.) I do not, by the bye, consider Buddhism an organized religion. That is probably an error on my part, but in my perfect little dream world I think of it more as a philosophical system that doesn't really put a lot of emphasis on the supernatural.
I realize that this post is somewhat more contentious than I would like, but I just had to speak my mind. For that reason, I am reporting it myself to alert the Mentors that some censorship might be in order.

 

[DanP]

They were unwilling to admit that the Atheist hunkered down beside them was far braver than they were because he was willing to face a violent death for his principles without the false benefit of a supernatural crutch and belief that he'd be brought back to some idyllic afterlife. They'd be praying their pointy little asses off, and couldn't understand that a rational being has no need for such things.

This is a bit unfair. Ultimately, it doesn't matter why a soldier is a good soldier and deserves a medal for courage. It makes no difference to me if a soldier displays ultimate courage in battle
because he believes in god, he believes in his government and its propaganda, or its on the battlefield to protect his believes and values. One is no braver than the other.

I have no beef with religious ppl. I see no reason to demean them because they believe in a supernatural entity. My crusade is with the church and it's ill will to infiltrate in politics and dominate the civil society.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I have no beef with religious ppl. I see no reason to demean them because they believe in a supernatural entity.

Depends on which supernatural entity they believe in. It's more acceptable to believe in some supernatural entities than it is others. I guess the reason for that is that some are more likely to exist than others, but how do we know which ones are more likely to exist? People think that the older something is, the more likely it is to be valid. I guess they think religion predates lying. When was lying invented?

 

[Danger]

When was lying invented?

About 7 1/2 seconds after speech.
(Kidding, of course; deception predates formal communication by several million years.)

DanP, I did state that my post was contentious. Your rebuttal was admirably restrained. While I stand by my words, you are equally entitled to stand by yours. I don't think that anyone can determine which of us (if either) is correct. One thing that I will point out, however, is that almost none of the participants in WWI were professional soldiers. They were everyday Joes who got draughted and would have been far happier elsewhere. My uncle Bruce was killed in France in 1917. He had volunteered, rather than been draughted, and was not at all pleased with his situation. Even though sanitation at home was a bit iffy in those days (no indoor plumbing or toilet paper), the circumstances in which he found himself were dismaying to say the least. Living, eating, and sleeping in pit of freezing mud composed largely of his and his compatriots' excrement, while breathing mustard gas, was disheartening to him.

 

[Hurkyl]

You prefer encouraging the usage of a poor definition over correcting it?

Of course not. That's why I object when I see people trying to equate "atheism" with lack of belief.