I was surprised to discover that many atheists actually disagree with this because they felt that you would have to have the conscious recognition of the religious perspective first.A position which may have some merit, but I don't think it's set in stone. I'm well aware of the religious perspective having been immersed in it practically from birth. (I have some dim memories of being baptized when I was an infant) My Mom comes from a Roman Catholic family. I walked away from it all because I came to realize that nothing about it added up or made any sense whatever. Especially the "We are the elect, the chosen ones of God" thing which in a universe spanning 13.7 billion light years in any direction strikes me as one of the single most breathtakingly arrogant claims of all time. It was a conceit which in my mind continues to begger belief but at the same time, I can understand it as it bring some people a measure of comfort. By the same token, I don't think one needs to understand the religious position in order to not hold to one. "I don't know and I don't care" is an increasing viewpoint these days and it has nothing to do with any sort of understanding of what it is to be religious. It's one of those things that may be seen as a quaint superstition but which is otherwise just not on a person's radar screen.
... I don't think one needs to understand the religious position in order to not hold to one. "I don't know and I don't care" is an increasing viewpoint these days and it has nothing to do with any sort of understanding of what it is to be religious. It's one of those things that may be seen as a quaint superstition but which is otherwise just not on a person's radar screen.I think that this position was probably the most common view throughout most of history -- even in the most remote ancient times. That is how I came up with my Temple Theory: the idea that the original temples were foremost created as token-holders of real estate claims of the various first tribal people as they settled down to farming (a non-religious origin). I would consider this under the term, "secular", because it doesn't suggest what one would argue regarding religious beliefs. It is an I-don't-really-give-a-damn attitude about particular absolutes. Most people just go with the flow. But since they aren't the ones caring, their views aren't the ones that are ever recorded in history or passed on. I think that most other non-human animals also have similar thinking. They too would form organized religion if they had the ability to communicate as effectively as us. The reason we don't witness this so much in them now is because even if they fancied such thoughts, they don't have the physiological patience to give-a-damn.
Christian thinking of what the word “Christian" is about has drastically changed in the last thirty years.
The ruler by what you gauge a Christian with has been lengthening to the point it can include the majority of Christian thinking.
If they expand anymore they might have to include atheists.
Go to The Christian Science Monitor website and pull up the science newsletter. You could easily replace the word “The Christian Science Monitor" with term “Atheist Newsletter" and have no problems.
What does this say about understanding the religious position?
Just as the Christians have a different option of what “Atheist" means, I think most atheists have a option of what “Christian" means that may not be mainstream thinking for a lot of Christians anymore.
"Atheist", although not so insulting in many respects to some terms, still defines itself into opposition of others.` For this very reason, I like Julia Sweeney's take on this ~ she suggests calling oneself a 'naturalist'. Why? because that makes theists/believers Anaturalists, defining them by their opposition to others :) `
"Atheist", although not so insulting in many respects to some terms, still defines itself into opposition of others.` For this very reason, I like Julia Sweeney's take on this ~ she suggests calling oneself a 'naturalist'. Why? because that makes theists/believers Anaturalists, defining them by their opposition to others :) ` Brilliant !!
Axegrrl Post 20
I like the name “naturalist", but I’ll date myself here, “naturalist" use to be the term for nudist. Is there something that Julia Sweeney not telling us?
My pick is “Gnostic" it is word that was used at a time when nobody could figure out religion. And use for a hundred different groups all going in different directions. But most of the groups felt that man was part of god and that knowledge would help him understand “god" (mankind). Sort of like an atheist god in today’s thinking.
There is very little that man does today that was or is not effected by man’s knowledge.
The word “Gnostic" means “knowledge".
Jesus, Mary, Thomas and Judas taught Gnostic. And I am finding out students of Paul also taught and preached Gnostic.
At the time of Jesus there were three groups of interest, Gentiles, Christians and Gnostic. The Gentiles and Christians were new, the Gnostic teachings had been around for sometime.
Rome itself just about went Gnostic as a state religion. To end the confusion and to unite the people the Roman Church got rid of the Gentiles and Gnostics.
I don’t know if you noticed but CFI’s new member Sigfried is unhappy with the organized religion and their gods and wanted to create his own god that he can relate to. Gnostic thinking, some groups were against priests, each person was his own priest and advancement was by knowledge, some Buddha thinking here.
Instead of going right or going left, we give a little bit and those believers who need something to replace their beliefs with can have a custom fit for everyone.
On the negative side, I’m pretty sure there are a few Gnostic churches still in operation and that would be confusing for some. But I don’t think any of those churches are in America.
Another negative is that is that it involves more than a one liner and a lot of atheists would need updated.
It is quite possible that a move like that would cause a lot of notice and I bet the atheists would more than triple in number in just a few years.
I do not think anything going to change, but that’s my two cents.
If we think of ourselves as Humanists, wouldn’t Christians by defintion be Ahumanists? 
A theist can be a humanist.
But a Theist (believing in a supernatural being) by definition is an Anaturalist
Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.
Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.
**** This guy 1peter315 says he is an atheist and is on this forum and he defending his atheists’ thinking by explaining what there are two forms of atheism.
For me, the reason why this is true is because of what atheism is. I define atheism as:
The belief that there are no gods. (Strong atheism)
A lack of belief in any gods. (Weak atheism)
Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web. Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=10924496#post10924496 **** This guy 1peter315 says he is an atheist and is on this forum and he defending his atheists’ thinking by explaining what there are two forms of atheism.And what does that explain exactly?
For me, the reason why this is true is because of what atheism is. I define atheism as: a) The belief that there are no gods. (Strong atheism) b) A lack of belief in any gods. (Weak atheism)I hope you are not implying that there is a difference. a) The lack of any evidence for an undefined supernatural being suggests there are no gods of any kind (except as an invention of imagination) b) The lack of any evidence for an undefined supernatural being suggests there are no gods of any kind (except as an invention of imagination) At no point does belief of the "existence" of an undefined god enter either equation. Define God, then we can talk. To identify God as a creative force is vague and tells us nothing. On the contrary, this vagueness has led to a general "feeling" of moral superiority resulting in endless (but meaningless) discussions, prejudices, wars, and enforced theocracies such as the Catholic Inquisition and Sharia law, which are fundamentally based on the same theology but demand blind obedience to their particular brand of God. Earlier I have defined Potential of the Holomovement as the universal creative force which has demonstrable properties, both in science and philosophy (see Bohm).
To make it easier on Theists, I’ll pose this question.
If we count all the varieties of gods, demons, angels, spirits, etc. How many gods (spiritual beings) are there?
I will not accept the answer of 'there is only one god" as that is clearly not the case (in context of theism).
Here is a hint,
Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities. Those numbers are probably a very conservative estimate because we have no accurate information before 4000 B.C. This means any dieties worshipped by man before this period are unaccounted for. In truth, the possibilities are nearly infinite. For example, in Hindu the entire living universe is merely a unique manifestation of Ishvara. This leads to the fact that there are 330 million "gods or goddesses."http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gods_and_goddesses_are_there and http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm Which of these gods would you reject? And if you do would that make you an atheist in the eyes of those who believe in a different God? I believe the difference between a monotheist and an atheist is something like .03%. Most theists are atheist to all gods except their own. An atheist does not believe in any of them (except as metaphor), which is the correct skeptic position.
Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web. Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=10924496#post10924496 **** This guy 1peter315 says he is an atheist and is on this forum and he defending his atheists’ thinking by explaining what there are two forms of atheism. For me, the reason why this is true is because of what atheism is. I define atheism as: The belief that there are no gods. (Strong atheism) A lack of belief in any gods. (Weak atheism)Well, you're wrong. There is only one kind of atheism. This is the root of the word: a=without; theism=belief in god. In other words atheism is a lack of belief in god; an atheist is one who has no belief in god. When it comes to atheism, an atheist has no beliefs. He or she does not believe there is no god. An atheist simply lacks belief and rejects the concept of god because no objective evidence of a god has ever been presented by a believer in any of the thousands of gods anyone has proposed. There is no weak or strong atheism, there is only atheism--a lack of belief in god. Until you can understand and accept the true meaning of atheism and atheist, without trying to redefine what those words mean, there is no reason for any rational person to debate you on any topic related to belief. To attempt to do so would be like trying to discuss mathematics with someone who has no concept of what mathematics is or means. It would be a complete waste of time. Lois
Can we just deal with FACTS?
What do the facts tells us.
To an Atheist – The word “Atheist" means no GOD period.
To a Christian – The word “Atheist" means there is a GOD you just don’t have belief.
That’s the facts and that’s the problem.
You can say all the Christians are wrong and don’t know how to read a dictionary but that will not changes the facts.
When you say they have to understand Atheism, no they don’t, because they already have an understanding.
Then you have the problem that a lot of Atheists (like 1peter315) are confused as to the meaning.
Write4U Post #149 Define God, then we can talk.
I could not agree more. The word “God" like the word “Atheist" has different meaning to people.
My feeling is that Christians do not like the subject of defining “god", because it makes them think and acknowledge there are other gods in the world today, which is against their belief.
Can we just deal with FACTS?Mike, Lois DID deal with the facts. You're trying to pidgeon hole something to fit your own worldview and no matter how passionately you repeat the same tired old arguments, it just won't make any of it so. Atheism is a LACK of belief. Period. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, that all there is to it.
I totally agree with you in context of lack of belief in (a) god or deity. However I do "believe" your statement was to broad in scope. May I suggest a small narrowing of the statement to read, "Atheism is a LACK of belief in (a) god or deity". I say this only to prevent any theist from claiming that atheists lack belief in anything, including beliefs in justice, fairness, morals, etc. IMO this is a key point as the broad interpretation would suggest atheists have no conviction of any kind and therefore are unrestrained from moral behavior. We have all heard that one many times before. In fact I recall some time ago a person claiming that without his belief in god (the punisher), he would feel free to do anything he wanted including murder. He claimed that would be the inevitable result of atheism. Clearly he did not understand the term atheist.Can we just deal with FACTS?Mike, Lois DID deal with the facts. You're trying to pidgeon hole something to fit your own worldview and no matter how passionately you repeat the same tired old arguments, it just won't make any of it so. Atheism is a LACK of belief. Period. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, that all there is to it.
It is not about how we see ourselves, it is how others see us.
The Atheists are 10% of the people and not all “Atheists” have a problem on understanding what an Atheist is, but some do.
The other 90% of the people see “Atheist” differently using the same definitions.
In Post #151 Lois says I am wrong. I do not think Lois understands that is not my thinking. It is the thinking of Atheist 1peter315.
I posted what is being talked about on the web forums.
In Post #154 Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon, You are missing the whole point. It is not about what I think. It is about the 90% of people that understand Atheist differently than you do.
If you do not want to be understood in the world, then stay in your pigeonhole. Otherwise take a serious look at the FACTS.
Fact is that “Atheist” also have trouble understanding what “Atheist” means. Just look at Post #151.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon do you think the Atheist in Post #151 is just stupid, uneducated or just unable to know what he understands his thoughts are?
Fact, if words are not understood to have the same meanings to all people then the chances of having any meaningful dialect is greatly reduced.
Fact, EOC and Lois are happy being in a cult. Part of being in a cult is to have meanings that the mass of the people do not understand and that is what the FACTS are showing here.
Just ask anyone in a cult, they will tell you that you really don’t understand the meaning of the cult and try and correct your understanding of certain terms or meanings of the cult.
And that’s what we have here. 90% of the world understands one meaning but the 10% “Atheist” have another meaning. Any way you turn it, it has all the makings of a cult.
Can anyone tell why I am having trouble stating “Facts”? I could get into details but that takes up so many pages that the main thought gets lost and never addressed.
The Atheists are 10% of the people and not all “Atheists" have a problem on understanding what an Atheist is, but some do. The other 90% of the people see “Atheist" differently using the same definitions.So what?
In Post #154 Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon, You are missing the whole point. It is not about what I think. It is about the 90% of people that understand Atheist differently than you do.You ARE missing the point. You've been spending a lot of words overthinking the problem. As to "It is about the 90% of people that understand Atheist differently than you do." again, so what? What you're doing here is appealing to numbers as if that alone somehow makes it right. It doesn't. If 6.5billion people believe something but it's wrong, then it's wrong. The sheer numbers who believe something to be so doesn't make it so. If it's wrong, then it's wrong. Period.
TO those who do not understand the word Atheist, I “believe” the answer can be found in any reputable dictionary.
The burden is not on the atheist to explain atheism. The burden lies with the theist to explain Theism. Once we have established that it is a vague notion, based on a thousand myths, as evidenced by any reputable dictionary, and once the word theist is “no longer” valid, then the word atheism will not be necessary and we have cleared the matter to the satisfaction of all.
EOC Post #157
When 90% of the people don’t understand you,
You say, “So what".
So what, if 90% of the people you can not fully communicate your beliefs with.
So what, if you are viewed by some as a cult.
So what, if Atheist themselves have different views of what the meaning is.
So what, if you do not care how other people view you.
So what, if you are wrong about sheer numbers, dictionaries are based upon mass understandings, not the view of the few.
What is right when it comes to communication?
Would it not be great if 100% of the people understood you?