posted
I see what you're getting at Javert. You just have a far broader definition of atheist than I do.
Under your definition, I am an atheist. Under my definition, I'm not.
My definition of "atheist" is the dictionary definition: "one who believes that there is no deity" (per Miriam Webster Dictionary).
Not one who doesn't believe in a deity, but one who believes "there is no deity".
I can't say I do believe that.
If your definition is a broader "anyone who doesn't believe in a higher being" than I fit that description, though that's not the definition of the word as I've always understood it.
I've always seen it as three parts: 1. Those who believe in a deity or deities 2. Those who don't specifically believe in any deity or deities but also don't rule out their possibility. Effectively, those who commit to neither extreme and feel it is impossible to know one way or the other. 3. Those who believe there is no deity or are no deities.
You seem to group 2 and 3 together as atheist, while I've always just defined atheist as 3.
As I've said already, I believe there are things in this world that we can't explain and commonalities between many religions from disparate regions that make them hard to dismiss out of hand. Does that make me a theist? I don't feel it does, but you may.
I also don't adhere to any religion or pray to any specific theistic entity or entities. Does that make me an atheist? I don't feel it does, but you may.
Would someone who believes in totem spirits of trees and animals but no supreme being(s) be considered an atheist? What about those who believe in ancestor spirits who watch over them, but no supreme deity. Are they atheists?
I don't believe there are just two buckets. There is a gray area in the middle.
My polar division would go from (leaving out many divisions, obviously):
- Belief in one true god and active rejection of all other beliefs - Belief in one true god - Belief in one true god who has many forms - Belief in more than one deity - Belief in several spirits/totems/etc - Belief in a supernatural power (nature, the force, etc) that is beyond human reach that has no particular form - Acknowledgement that there are things beyond human understanding, but no particular belief in any one thing - Unsurity whether there is or is not a deity or supernatural force - Reasonable doubt that anything beyond human experience exists, but openness to the possibility - Belief only in what has been empirically observed, but openness to things that may not yet have been observed - Belief only in what can be scientifically proven - Active and outspoken rejection of all that cannot be proven
I don't believe the issue is as black and white as you wish to make it. There is gray.
Though, you can call gray "not white" or "not black" depending on your own point of view. Which is why I'm often on the "other side" of discussions with theists and atheists alike, while also often being embraced by both sides.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to judge, I'm just defining things by what I have always thought of as the standard definition of an atheist. And it also seems to be the definition most atheists I have met use.
I think I identify as "atheist" because it covers what I am the best, and it is usually the most easily understood. And yet there still is misunderstanding.
And yes, as far as my definition of atheism is concerned, someone who believes in spirits could still be an atheist. If I understand Buddhism correctly, I would even venture to say that most Buddhists are technically atheists.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, it's probably a case of us having different definitions.
Javert, I think the reason FlyingCow and I have trouble answering your question is because the most vocal atheists we have seen or heard are the ones who believe there is no God, and claim to know it to be true. It's easy to shy away from being classified an atheist when most of the people you converse with consider that to mean "I believe there is no God." Because that wouldn't be true of me. I may not believe in God, but I also do not believe that there is no God. Tricky, but true imo. x_x
Sooo......perhaps it may be an incorrect usage of the dictionary definition; I'm not sure. I've seen dictionary definitions that support my notion. But my point is, many people who fall into my category of belief use the word agnostic to describe themselves because it tends to express something truer than the word atheist does. That may vary by region or simply by the individual people you know, but at least around here, everyone knows what I mean when I say I'm agnostic. If I say I'm atheist, and then go on to explain that I'm not sure if there's a God or not, they become confused.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, an atheist is just someone who lives as if there is no god - they make no provisions for what he may or may not desire of them because he is a non-factor in their lives.
My experience is similar to Javert's in that most atheists I know do not express active disbelief, they just don't believe.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I tend to go with what the majority of people who take on the title call it, rather than the dictionary.
Part of that has to do with once coming across an old dictionary that had "devil worship" in the atheist definition.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the popular "There is no God" definition of atheism is largely because of the "history is written by the victors" nature of things. For many religious people, the term atheist is as much a slur as it is a descriptive label.
When one sees something as in opposition to themselves, they tend to exaggerate that opposition. It's not hard to see how the popular conception of atheism, given that most of the population is theistic, is that atheism is in opposition to their beliefs rather than just the absence of them.
The difference between "I don't believe" and "I disbelieve" is important but subtle. Unfortunately, Joe Public is *not* good with subtlety.
That felt like sort of a ramble. Sorry about that.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a national atheist organization has its way, a series of 12-foot-tall memorial crosses that adorn Utah's highways will be taken down.
But not if the families of the people those crosses honor — state Highway Patrol troopers killed in the line of duty — have anything to say about it.
American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government establishment of religion.
But the families of the fallen heroes say otherwise. They say the crosses, which bear the names and badge numbers of the troopers, were built strictly as memorials.
"We're being attacked personally for something we did to help us heal," said Clint Pierson, whose father, Trooper Ray Lynn Pierson, was shot and killed during a traffic stop in 1978.
"We put the crosses up as a memorial to the fallen officers."
posted
12-foot tall crosses for someone shot in 1978 does seem a little much. I appreciate that the family wants to grieve in their own way, and I respect that, but I'd say putting up a 12-foot non-denominational grave marker on the freeway wouldn't be any better.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's actually a perfect example of something which shouldn't be allowed in the first place, and when atheists challenge it, it is mistaken as disrespectful or a 'war on Christianity' or sommat.
The only way that such a monument is acceptable is if it's on private land, I think.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
