Atheism & Theism
- Thread starter Demon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Don't Atheists believe that there is no higher being? 
I may have them confused with Agnostics here but it's my understanding that Atheists believe everything just is, no god or anything 'made' everything.
/posting in a debate section, it's a miracle!
I may have them confused with Agnostics here but it's my understanding that Atheists believe everything just is, no god or anything 'made' everything./posting in a debate section, it's a miracle!
I thought about this, but came to the conclusion of: "that's not atheism, that's apathy".Don't Atheists believe that there is no higher being?
It's easy to link the two together because some atheists are a bit apathetic. However if to be an atheist is to be completely apathetic... how many atheists are atheists?
I'm failing to see the actual debate here. Atheism is defined as the belief that there is/are no god/s. If you believe in a god of any kind, you are not an atheist, by definition.
The problem is defining "god". Check the loose definitions for "god" here (the definition with the lowercase g): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god.
Like you said, if you believe in a god, you're not an atheist. But the way "god" is defined, we start getting into circular reasoning and/or another problem or two.
To my understanding (and having taken Religions of the World as an elective), an Atheist is someone who does not believe in any form of 'higher power', regardless of what that higher power may be called (god/dess, fate, divine entity, etc.). An Agnostic is someone who is not sure whether or not there is a 'higher power'.
FinalCzen said:
That's just arguing semantics, and isn't really the point of atheism. Atheism is the counter to theism. Theism is the belief in a supreme being and revelation. Atheism is the rejection thereof. Atheism, by definition, can only exist as a reaction to theism, thus there is no circularity, because atheism cannot define theism.
Okay but like Terrible Terry Tate said, I'm failing to see just what your argument or debate is. Are you questioning what exactly 'God' is or whether an atheist believing in an inanimate object makes them an atheist? If you don't clearly state an argument then no one can successfully challenge your position. I mean judging from the title of your thread, I thought you were going for a theism versus atheism debate, but . . . I'm not so sure what you're aiming for.
To answer the questions you posed at the beginning of the thread, atheists do not believe in any one religious entity or in a series of entities. Unlike followers of a polytheistic or a monotheistic religion, atheists adhere to the rules governing science: theories, hypotheses, and that whole plethora of stuff. Therefore it's theoretically impossible for a practicing atheist to claim some sort of religious reverence to an inanimate object, that defies their being an atheist.
Second question: I know of a few practicing atheists and I wouldn't go so far as to say that they fall into apathy. Apathy denotes being very uncaring about well . . . anything: goals, succession, demotion, anything that is considered to be significant in their life or in the lives of others either close to them or not. Atheists simply choose to follow a path of not pledging their belief to any one religion, not every atheist is apathetic and not every apathetic person is an atheist. That's not something to be debated, it's merely factual. Everyone is individualistic, your personal characteristics do not necessarily define your religious affiliations, hon.
Circular reasoning? That's like . . . wait you're saying that theism defines atheism and vice-versa. That's a contradictory and fallacious statement if I ever did hear one, even if it is implied. Theism, as Terry stated is the belief in a religious figure, a Messianic figure, a god, or gods by definition. Theism can be separated into -- monotheism, the belief of one god and polytheism the belief of many gods. Atheism is "without God" or atheos which in Greek is godless so you as an Atheist for example would believe in nothing, just the nature of science and evolution, theories, hypotheses of scientists either long since passed on or still breathing.
One can not define the other because they exist to counteract each other, they are polar opposites. It's like good and evil, one can not define the other if their definitions directly oppose each other. It makes no sense henceforth there is no circular reasoning, they just are.
To answer the questions you posed at the beginning of the thread, atheists do not believe in any one religious entity or in a series of entities. Unlike followers of a polytheistic or a monotheistic religion, atheists adhere to the rules governing science: theories, hypotheses, and that whole plethora of stuff. Therefore it's theoretically impossible for a practicing atheist to claim some sort of religious reverence to an inanimate object, that defies their being an atheist.
Second question: I know of a few practicing atheists and I wouldn't go so far as to say that they fall into apathy. Apathy denotes being very uncaring about well . . . anything: goals, succession, demotion, anything that is considered to be significant in their life or in the lives of others either close to them or not. Atheists simply choose to follow a path of not pledging their belief to any one religion, not every atheist is apathetic and not every apathetic person is an atheist. That's not something to be debated, it's merely factual. Everyone is individualistic, your personal characteristics do not necessarily define your religious affiliations, hon.
Circular reasoning? That's like . . . wait you're saying that theism defines atheism and vice-versa. That's a contradictory and fallacious statement if I ever did hear one, even if it is implied. Theism, as Terry stated is the belief in a religious figure, a Messianic figure, a god, or gods by definition. Theism can be separated into -- monotheism, the belief of one god and polytheism the belief of many gods. Atheism is "without God" or atheos which in Greek is godless so you as an Atheist for example would believe in nothing, just the nature of science and evolution, theories, hypotheses of scientists either long since passed on or still breathing.
One can not define the other because they exist to counteract each other, they are polar opposites. It's like good and evil, one can not define the other if their definitions directly oppose each other. It makes no sense henceforth there is no circular reasoning, they just are.
Here is the way I see it though:
Atheism: no god.
god: something to which excessive attention is given.
Theism: god.
Human nature: "everyone" has gods.
So you start to go in a circle. There is a definition that can be used where there isn't a circle, and that is more consistent... but that definition is "apathetic", not "atheist". The problem is, not all atheists are apathetic, so again begins the circle.
I started the thread with a question because I wanted to see some opinions before tackling my own arguments/opinions. Because without knowing what direction to go in the discussion, I'd just be rambling despite knowing what I want to say. The subject is broad, but I'm broad too.
Theists can too.
Well if they take being an atheist seriously, and do give a religious reverance to an inanimate object, of course they'll probably deny it, but it doesn't mean that a reverence doesn't/wouldn't exist.
Last edited:
Which is all good and well, you started it with a question. However your question isn't necessarily a debatable query. Atheists, as I stated before, by definition pledge no allegiance to any inanimate object nor any God, there reverence so to speak lies with Science exclusively. Sit down with any Atheist and they will tell you only of Darwinism and the Big Bang Theory, they do reject the very notion that a God or a pantheon of Gods exist.
An atheist can not pledge to an object, merely a scientific ideology.
Yes theists can in certain religions such as Jainism and certain forms of Buddhism they do not accept the belief of Gods but what exactly is your point?
Final, that's what I'm trying to say, atheists do not claim reverence to an object, they believe in theories. If they were to take their belief as adamantly as we'd claim or purported then they would not theoretically worship a statue. Worshiping an object and giving it God-like qualities is a form of Theism, it is essentially believing that this something created something. Atheists believe that these somethings did not create anything. And that's that.
Science isn't all that matters to an atheist. I'm sure that they have lives of their own. If somebody waved a one hundred dollar bill in front of an atheist, most wouldn't turn it down. Which leads to something else... just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they don't worship anything... it's just that their god might be something else. So while they may deny having a god, really they do, or might. Their god might be money, or a number of other things - the possibilities are endless.
So the way I see it, is that the only way to be an atheist the way people describe it is, apparently, to be completely apathetic. But then we're back to arguing semantics, and this also means that not all atheists are atheists.
What?sneakerpimp441l857471 said:
I'm seriously failing to see the point here . . . I'm going to use this quote to support my earlier statements. Atheists do not worship anything:
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]To say that we "do not believe in God" is to presuppose the existence of a god or gods. Can you demonstrate to us that such a being exists? If so, then it would be in our best interest (and in the best interest of truthfulness) for us to believe that such a being exists -- especially if that being would damn people to an eternity in the agony of hell-fire simply for the crime of being unable to detect his or her existence. It is easy to see that the sun exists, but the same is not true for gods, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, and other unseen things that some people believe exist. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]We do not believe that any gods exist. In many cases, we do not understand what people mean when they say the words "god" or "goddess." The claims that people have made for the existence of gods either do not hold water or do not make sense. For example, the Hindu description of their ultimate deity defies understanding. The whole point of that description is to make it clear that we cannot and will not understand. This being the case, why even talk about it? On the other hand, the descriptions of the Christian deity makes sense, but the arguments for the existence of that deity border on the ridiculous. Most of the apologetics for the Christian deity are a mish-mash of emotionally charged threats, falsehood, and faulty logic. Christian apologists have to do much better than they have done in order to get me to believe that what they say is true. The Christian claims, as far as I can see, are pure falsehood. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]As for worshipping, what is there to worship if there are no gods? And even if some of the gods actually existed (Allah of Islam; Yahweh of Judaism; Jesus of Christianity), it is doubtful that they would be worthy of worship. Allah was a self-indulgent tyrant. Jehovah or Yahweh was a short-tempered bungler. Jesus was inconsistent and invented the most damaging doctrine that has graced the minds of men: eternal torture in hell-fire. Even if hell existed, I would not worship a being who would send any human there for even five minutes. If worship is how one avoids hell-fire, then the being demanding worship through this ploy is entirely unworthy of worship[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif].
SOURCE: http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9886.htm
The person who I quoted is Cliff Walker of Positive Atheism Magazine. He goes on to state that to use the word "worship" in any sense other than the religious sense is to diminish and undermine the word, therefore stripping it of its intended meaning. Ergo, he is basically stating that since they do not worship any gods than do not worship anything materialistic: so they don't worship money or cars or [/FONT]anything of that physical nature.
So basically what he's stating is that as an atheist, he believes in nothing. He goes on to say that the claims of a god or goddess makes no sense to him, therefore he rejects the existence and the validity of these deities. As for worshiping an object . . .
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]No. I don't worship anything. I do not worship myself; I do not worship humanity; I do not worship reason; I do not worship any "life force." And I do not worship any gods: such beings are the figments of people's imaginations. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
I simply live my life and do the best I can to be a good person. I do this because it is the right thing to do, not out of any reward I might receive.[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] ---
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]That is what an atheist does, he/she leads his life, not pledging a religious reverence to any one particular thing be it a deity or a physical object. They simply exist and enjoy what life has to offer them.
[/FONT]
This is a strawman. Money is not a deity. An atheist wouldn't claim they worship money as a god. And if they did, they wouldn't be an atheist.
FinalCzen said:
Apathy has nothing to do with anything in this argument. Apathy is a lack of caring, or a neutrality. Atheism is an -ism, therefore it is a belief system, therefore it is a positive action. I have known fervent atheists, who believe just as strongly as religious types. On the other hand, I've known apathetic Christians, who believe when it's convenient, but don't really get passionate about their religion. So the word "apathy" is simply an adjective that can and should be removed from this discussion entirely.
I understand your argument but I think what you're really trying to say, by your mention of deities, is "atheism is what you do to get out of Christianity". I think it's the reasoning of a lot of people - however, this isn't necessarily the whole definition of atheism and the definition I point to is different.
You'll probably call this a straw man, and in a way it kind of is, but at some point it seems to be the incentive between most conversations involving atheism, including mine. We're talking a general subject but I think we both have some sort of reasoning for taking a certain side. So what I think is that when most people speak of atheism, what they really mean is "that opposed to Christianity" and they don't really want to say it so then they end up saying "that opposed to a deity"... but other than that, I don't really see a problem in pointing out the circularness between atheism and theism - because at some point, once we get religion aside, we might as well speak in logical terms.
That's just pure semantics. Theism is the belief of a god, yes, but if you believe an inanimate object to be a god, you're not theist,
you're insane :dave:
No, if they were opposed only to Christianity, that would make them a non-Christian. By that logic, anyone who looks at Christianity and says "that's not right, I'm opposed to that" is an atheist. So a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Zoroastrian would be an atheist. Which is simply not the case, logically.
You're taking an instance that applies in one or a few cases, and overgeneralizing it while trying to apply it across the board. It's just not logically sound.
Jquestionmark
Untitled
Most Atheists I know are opposed to religion in general, it just appears that Christianity is their target in specific because it is so large and commands so much media attention.
Apathy isn't a component of Atheism - it would better describe many "agnostics" (it's worth noting that agnosticism is more of a philosophical view on knowledge than a religious stance, but that's a whole other debate) who remain so forever. Atheists have made a conscious and willful decision to be so, and often care as much about religion as many religious people (in particular, what religion is doing to society).
Having reverence for something is very different from considering it a deity. I have great reverence for my wife, many of my friends, and some of m teachers, but that does not grant them any sort of godhood in my eyes.
Most important of all, claiming to be something does not make you so. People can claim to be atheist, but actually believe in supernatural phenomenon. People can claim to be Christian and actually worship L. Ron Hubbard. You create an unwritten false equivalency when you talk about "atheists" that consider things to be gods by equating atheists by definition and people that claim to be atheist. Not all atheists will claim to be so, and not all people that claim to be so are atheists - the two aren't equal.
Apathy isn't a component of Atheism - it would better describe many "agnostics" (it's worth noting that agnosticism is more of a philosophical view on knowledge than a religious stance, but that's a whole other debate) who remain so forever. Atheists have made a conscious and willful decision to be so, and often care as much about religion as many religious people (in particular, what religion is doing to society).
Having reverence for something is very different from considering it a deity. I have great reverence for my wife, many of my friends, and some of m teachers, but that does not grant them any sort of godhood in my eyes.
Most important of all, claiming to be something does not make you so. People can claim to be atheist, but actually believe in supernatural phenomenon. People can claim to be Christian and actually worship L. Ron Hubbard. You create an unwritten false equivalency when you talk about "atheists" that consider things to be gods by equating atheists by definition and people that claim to be atheist. Not all atheists will claim to be so, and not all people that claim to be so are atheists - the two aren't equal.
Christians are hated by many. It's a truth you don't hear too often, but when you look through history all the way till now, especially now, Christians get walloped just as much or even more than other religions.
I believe that considering supernatural forces and not a maker is ill logic, not a brand of atheism/agnosticism. I feel that things such as this easily becomes a game of semantics rather than philosophical debate_
Jquestionmark
Untitled
From what I've seen, Christianity is no less or more hated by Atheists than any other religion. It's just the most visible hate. Christianity has done quite well for itself in the past (controlling most of Europe for the entire Dark Ages, the Crusades, etc.), and continues to wield an obscene amount of power in the present (controlling plenty of Europe still today, violating laws, including religion in science classes). If Christians are getting walloped in larger numbers, it's because there are far more of them. Personally, I'm having a hard time seeing where they are having such a tough time, if anything they're hitting back even harder (Creationism in schools for example). I haven't heard of any Christians having a hard time getting the US military to recognize their religious symbols. But that's just one example, I'd be open to seeing specifics of where Christianty has gotten it worse than other religions/atheism.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear - if someone believes in supernatural forces, they are most certainly not an atheist. My concern was that people who claim to be atheist and people who are atheist shouldn't be lumped together. As soon as someone considers something to be a god/supernatural, they are not an atheist. I was responding to Czen's "just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they don't worship anything... it's just that their god might be something else." I should have quoted it to make the direction of my comment more clear.
SangueLuna
Blood Moon
I was skimming through the thread and find myself thinking what is the debate all about. Is it about defining Atheism or trying to find a reason that Atheism is illogical or just trying to redefine words in the thinnest way possible? I am just lost to see a debate here.
Anyway, I am an Atheist and I don't believe in a God or theist ideas. I don't believe in worshiping a higher being as a god and reject the idea of it. Yes, I do look into the idea of alien life influencing us but I don't see them any more then explores who may have come out of curiosity. It could explain a lot on how religion was developed and there is some scientific theories based on fact on the subject matter but it is still questionable. I don't 100 percent believe in it but I don't reject it either. If Aliens do exist, it does not dismiss me being an Atheist. An Atheist is all about exploring scientific findings and understanding the universe. We are not even over the tip of the ice berg yet in explaining life.
As I said before, I cannot fathom the idea of an actual creator/ God creating the universe and creating us. It just makes no sense to me. I think there is more scientific explanation to why mankind choose to believe in a God, whether it be intelligent life on other planets (it is obvious there has to be to some degree with the vastness of the universe) or just simply mankind needed a way to explain the existence of life. We were just too primitive to see the logical truth.
Personally it is just an opinion. Does not make me right or wrong. We all have to doubt sometimes what we believe in because we are only human. We know we are flawed and if I so happen to be wrong, then I am wrong but I don't feel that I need a God to be good.
Anyway, I am an Atheist and I don't believe in a God or theist ideas. I don't believe in worshiping a higher being as a god and reject the idea of it. Yes, I do look into the idea of alien life influencing us but I don't see them any more then explores who may have come out of curiosity. It could explain a lot on how religion was developed and there is some scientific theories based on fact on the subject matter but it is still questionable. I don't 100 percent believe in it but I don't reject it either. If Aliens do exist, it does not dismiss me being an Atheist. An Atheist is all about exploring scientific findings and understanding the universe. We are not even over the tip of the ice berg yet in explaining life.
As I said before, I cannot fathom the idea of an actual creator/ God creating the universe and creating us. It just makes no sense to me. I think there is more scientific explanation to why mankind choose to believe in a God, whether it be intelligent life on other planets (it is obvious there has to be to some degree with the vastness of the universe) or just simply mankind needed a way to explain the existence of life. We were just too primitive to see the logical truth.
Personally it is just an opinion. Does not make me right or wrong. We all have to doubt sometimes what we believe in because we are only human. We know we are flawed and if I so happen to be wrong, then I am wrong but I don't feel that I need a God to be good.