tat tvam asi wrote:A lot of atheists out there have taken an anti-theistic form of atheism. They don't just lack a belief in God(s), they actually go on to oppose people that do. But what I mean to suggest is that it's possible for someone to be an atheist, to lack God belief, and yet have a 'to each his own' world view and not aggressively oppose all theists.

I fully agree with you that it's possible to be atheist yet have a live & let live attitude. To the general, non-atheist public, I don't think this comes through, but I don't fault the atheists who have been outspoken (well, some of them I might) for this. It is entirely natural for atheists who felt the need to present atheism as a valid and positive frame of reference, to have pointed out the weaknesses of theism. They'd have to do this in order to establish that there is no corner on the truth. As you also said in your excellent post, theists do not tend to allow give and take about the matter of God's existence, so they will take any contrary position as an "anti" statement. No doubt that some atheists are genuinely anti-theists (C. Hitchens qualifies), but I'd have no idea how to quantify that with a percentage. My point was that in the general perception, an atheist is also an anti-theist. If you searched the media for uses of the word atheist, I believe the context would often make it clear that atheists are thought of as those who want to destroy belief in God.

DWill wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:A lot of atheists out there have taken an anti-theistic form of atheism. They don't just lack a belief in God(s), they actually go on to oppose people that do. But what I mean to suggest is that it's possible for someone to be an atheist, to lack God belief, and yet have a 'to each his own' world view and not aggressively oppose all theists.

I fully agree with you that it's possible to be atheist yet have a live & let live attitude. To the general, non-atheist public, I don't think this comes through, but I don't fault the atheists who have been outspoken (well, some of them I might) for this. It is entirely natural for atheists who felt the need to present atheism as a valid and positive frame of reference, to have pointed out the weaknesses of theism. They'd have to do this in order to establish that there is no corner on the truth. As you also said in your excellent post, theists do not tend to allow give and take about the matter of God's existence, so they will take any contrary position as an "anti" statement. No doubt that some atheists are genuinely anti-theists (C. Hitchens qualifies), but I'd have no idea how to quantify that with a percentage. My point was that in the general perception, an atheist is also an anti-theist. If you searched the media for uses of the word atheist, I believe the context would often make it clear that atheists are thought of as those who want to destroy belief in God.

I wouldn't want to try and oppose your insight here because it seems futile. Atheists are in large part labeled as against God and religion by society. It would be interesting to see some percentages on how many atheists simply lack a personal God belief (as the term atheism implies) and want to just leave it at, and then how many atheists are opposed to any one else having a God belief crossing over into anti-theism.

Because a lot of atheists started out in theism and then at some point decided to change over to atheism they tend to come right into the anti-theistic position. They often come into it aggressively because they had formerly believed in God and then later concluded that they and everyone else are wrong about the entire thing. So they turn against God and religion often with the same zeal that had formerly been applied to the promotion of God and religion. I think that this percentage would turn out to be higher than the percentage of atheists who were born into an environment lacking of God belief and simply never decided to take on any kind of God belief as they got older. This minority of basic atheists wouldn't care if others believe in God(s) and practice religion while they lack interest altogether.

I see the same in the way of reverse conversion. Theists who were once atheist tend to oppose atheism with the same aggression that they had formerly opposed theism. This is the classical apologetic tactic of claiming that they used to be atheist and now see the light and want to bring all of the other atheists into the light as well. There seems to be a lot of bouncing around from one extreme to the other and it works in both directions for sure. And - in both cases - the far right and far left are usually equally opposed to finding a middle ground in favor of hugging the extremities.

All these different definitions for believers and nonbelievers gives me a headache.

For me, I've been categorized as an Agnostic...but it leaves out my sense of spiritual awareness that something grand and beautiful exists in the Universe.

I need that positive feeling to get through every day, without the possibilities, I just feel weak, useless, and stuck...very much lost.

I've always considered myself agnostic as opposed to atheist, not because I believe in god, but because I choose to believe in the existence of a soul. I don't adhere to any specific religion or god and instead have adopted a wait and see stance. As long as I do 'good' deeds I'm set for the afterlife whether it be heaven, nirvana, reincarnation, as a ghost, or even some kind of parallel dimension that lives 'outside' reality. If belief turns out be a requirement for admittance chances are I wouldn't want to be admitted in the first place. Many of my best friends are non-believers and any religion that discriminates on faith isn't one I want to adhere to.

On any site where Religion is discussed the word 'atheism' is the most in dispute. What's wrong with English ?

jaywalker wrote:On any site where Religion is discussed the word 'atheism' is the most in dispute. What's wrong with English ?

Atheism is an English word. All English words come from some other language or another, because English itself is a conglomeration of pretty much every other language possible. So to find the meaning of a word by knowing its Latin roots does not mean the word isn't English, just that we can determine what it means and why by how it came to be in the first place. Etymology can be a powerful ally in discussion and learning, and is nothing to scoff at or to set aside because it isn't as easily understood as other words one may be used to.

Any word you would use to describe someone who doesn't believe in God would become a heated debate because most people, by nature, want to believe in God, and they will always challenge those who willingly do not, no matter what name they go by. Atheism simply describes the position best, as seen below:

from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

This word encompasses the idea that atheists embody most clearly and obviously, and we can see how the word came to be. And I once again guarantee you that it is, in fact, an English word.

bleachededen wrote: b : the doctrine that there is no deity

That pretty much says it all. Emphasis on "doctrine."
I have a hard time reconciling "skeptic" with "atheist," agnostic seems to work better with that word.

Atheism is not a doctrine. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods.

Atheists are only bound together by the common lack of belief in a god.

the hows and whys are different for all of us.

There is no creed, there is no doctrine, there is no manifesto, there is no sacred word.

I just copied the dictionary entry to show that "atheism" is an English word. I did not mean to suggest it is a doctrine, although whoever wrote the Merriam-Webster entry seems to think there is one.

Sorry for causing any misunderstandings.