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.
Seems to me that "they" will fudge any concept in the religion to make the overall story hold. It's really a lack of principles.
What I have found is that many times this effort of making the system (story) hold is because of fear of losing something. It can be fear of losing control over human behavior, losing control over culture, losing control over ways of thinking, or control over who is allowed to influence and who isn't. And all of this in the name of a god as a cover over the fear.
What I have found is that many times this effort of making the system (story) hold is because of fear of losing something. It can be fear of losing control over human behavior, losing control over culture, losing control over ways of thinking, or control over who is allowed to influence and who isn't. And all of this in the name of a god as a cover over the fear.
What I have found is that many times this effort of making the system (story) hold is because of fear of losing something. It can be fear of losing control over human behavior, losing control over culture, losing control over ways of thinking, or control over who is allowed to influence and who isn't. And all of this in the name of a god as a cover over the fear.
I think it was Buddha that said something like fear of loss is the source of all pain. I've always liked the notion, even though it's a bit too inclusive.
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear:Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; [b]it is a lack of belief in gods.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.
Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Don’t use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.
If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a “cultural Catholic” and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Don’t shy away from the term. Embrace it.
Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.
The bolded exactly matches my post earlier in the thread.
Take from it what you will.
I'm not a member of any American Atheist society. I'm no militant atheist.
I actually do call myself a Humanist.
Humanism pretty much nails my worldview on the head.
For reference I fall in better with statements made by Humanists UK:
Quote:
Defining ‘humanism’
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
* trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
* makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
* believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.
I think it was Buddha that said something like fear of loss is the source of all pain. I've always liked the notion, even though it's a bit too inclusive.
I'm not sure I ever heard that teaching, thought it sounds sorta-Buddhist.
I think it was Buddha that said something like fear of loss is the source of all pain. I've always liked the notion, even though it's a bit too inclusive.
I never heard of that but it's a good thought. I notice that when I worry, I make all kinds of poor choices. The first step was to stop worrying about a god, its feelings, and its consequences.
What I have found is that many times this effort of making the system (story) hold is because of fear of losing something. It can be fear of losing control over human behavior, losing control over culture, losing control over ways of thinking, or control over who is allowed to influence and who isn't. And all of this in the name of a god as a cover over the fear.
post above
example of "story"
and example of "effort to make a story hold"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-05-2021 at 08:37 PM..
American Atheists is basically a PR firm for atheism. They are naturally going to put the happiest face on atheism that they can. They are trying to sell a product.
I find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be uniformly excellent, and the entry on "Atheism and Agnosticism" by mostly-atheist philosopher Paul Draper is no exception: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/.
Draper covers all the various definitions of atheism but notes that "in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."
As Irkle keep saying, waffling and tap-dancing like we see on this thread is just semantic game-playing and stifles meaningful discussion. Atheism is a "lack of belief in gods" but "not an affirmative belief that there is no god"? Pretty weak, even by the standards of PR-speak.
American Atheists is basically a PR firm for atheism. They are naturally going to put the happiest face on atheism that they can. They are trying to sell a product.
I find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be uniformly excellent, and the entry on "Atheism and Agnosticism" by mostly-atheist philosopher Paul Draper is no exception: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/.
Draper covers all the various definitions of atheism but notes that "in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."
As Irkle keep saying, waffling and tap-dancing like we see on this thread is just semantic game-playing and stifles meaningful discussion. Atheism is a "lack of belief in gods" but "not an affirmative belief that there is no god"? Pretty weak, even by the standards of PR-speak.
Seems like everyone chooses a definition of atheism depending on what best suits their own argument.
At least the version(s) you put forward in the link says as much:
"It is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy".
So it's an argument you can never win with someone that wants to take a different stance.
At the end if the day as I said earlier in the thread, it's not worth arguing over. We all know what atheism means.
There have been more threads on what the definition of atheism is than I've had hot dinners. Trust me, I've even argued for dozens of pages with fellow atheists about what an atheist is, and it is never completely resolved, which is why I can no longer be bothered to argue about it.
My preference is to go with the literal definition, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on.
Also I disagree that the American Atheists society folks are trying to put a 'happy face' on anything. Personally, I'm left with the opposite impression. They strike me as a miserable bunch.
Atheism is a "lack of belief in gods" but "not an affirmative belief that there is no god"? Pretty weak, even by the standards of PR-speak.
Rejecting unverifiable claims without testable proof is weak? Trying to define other people's positions for them so you can better argue with them is weak, rather than letting people define their own positions then decide if you have a matter to discuss or debate?
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.
