Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no belief about "God" or "not God" because, to me, an undefined hypothetical entity is not worth the mental energy of contemplation. To be against the idea is, to me, a means of strengthening the existence of belief in those who embrace either position. The only point I see in arguing for atheism is on a political level in order to preserve the rights of those who don't want the legislation of thought thrust upon them through prayer in schools or any other means.
I have no belief about "God" or "not God" because, to me, an undefined hypothetical entity is not worth the mental energy of contemplation. To be against the idea is, to me, a means of strengthening the existence of belief in those who embrace either position. The only point I see in arguing for atheism is on a political level in order to preserve the rights of those who don't want the legislation of thought thrust upon them through prayer in schools or any other means.
How do atheists respond to this criticism?
When something is as widely accepted as religion is, there has to be terms to classify people who do not follow it. It doesn't make religion any more credible.
Sounds like you are an ignostic (note the "i" at the beginning). Look it up if you don't know what it means.
Thank you, I did look it up and it does describe me. I was hoping to avoid labels as they tend to divide people but you've limned me as an ignostic and I cannot deny it.
When something is as widely accepted as religion is, there has to be terms to classify people who do not follow it. It doesn't make religion any more credible.
Religion is a very broad term. Wikipedia defines it as follows: "A religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways."
Does this not include everyone on the planet other than those whose underdeveloped or impaired mental faculties render them incapable of developing a coherent approach to living?
Theism, on the other hand, is the opposite of atheism and is not common to all religions. Buddhism does not concern itself with deities, nor do Taoism or Confucianism. There are Christian, Jewish and Islamic mystics and philosophers who likewise approach the teachings embodied in those religions without necessarily embracing theism.
It seems to me that atheism's responsibility is to define the thing that it opposes, otherwise it is a meaningless stance.
The word "atheist" requires the word "theist." If there were no theists, there wouldn't be any atheists. Considering atheism and theism only concern themselves with the lack of belief and belief of gods, it has no meaning when considering religion. However, it is no secret that a number of atheists tend to be anti-religious, specifically the connotation that religion carries: dogmatic systems of belief. Personally, this include the so-called "pacifist" religions, like Buddhism. Their inability to take action when action is necessary is disturbing.
However, just because the word atheist defines a subset of people that lack belief in gods, it does not mean that those gods exist. Just as we could logically all claim we are a-celestial teapotists, it doesn't mean celestial teapotists are correct in their claims of a celestial teapot.
The only point I see in arguing for atheism is on a political level in order to preserve the rights of those who don't want the legislation of thought thrust upon them through prayer in schools or any other means.
How do atheists respond to this criticism?
I don't consider your points to be criticism because I think you are correct that this is a political issue, loosely defined. It isn't just in the sphere of legislation that has brought about the rise of the anti-religious (by the way all atheist are not anti-religious) protest it goes to issues of promoting non-science in our society as well.
I have no belief about "God" or "not God" because, to me, an undefined hypothetical entity is not worth the mental energy of contemplation. To be against the idea is, to me, a means of strengthening the existence of belief in those who embrace either position. The only point I see in arguing for atheism is on a political level in order to preserve the rights of those who don't want the legislation of thought thrust upon them through prayer in schools or any other means.
How do atheists respond to this criticism?
Well, the only time we really hear the word Atheist is in the context of religion. So when discussing religion Atheist is the most proper term to define someone who is sans deity. Outside that, there isn't much use for the term...
Isn't it amazing how some people just keep beating a subject that they don't agree with to death. If they can't understand it, it must be wrong and they must correct it.
Silly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
