View Full Version : Just Say No to Atheism
The term "Atheism" should no longer be used. If theists wish their beliefs to be known as theism, that's fine.
Naturalism or Humanism would be more appropriate terms to use for those who do not begin from the position that gods exist, but instead begin from the position of nature or humans, which apparently do exist.
Theists themselves admit to faith as the primary driver of their beliefs, hence their views should be classified as "Ahuman" or "Anatural" since those views elevate the supernatural up onto a pedestal while degrading mankind to that which is scraped off a boot.
If theist's are to hold their contrasting and negative views of reality as firm beliefs, theirs should be categorized as opposing, and not the other way round.
Say Yes to Humanism - Say No to Atheism
Atheism is not believing in God. If you don't want to be described as an atheist, don't argue about religion. And humanism? Theists are also human. Dehumanisation of theists is not humanism. Didn't you learn anything from the Soviet experience?
Btw, this sounds like the kind of bs that Dawkins spouts, is he writing a new book?
superstring01
08-20-08, 01:04 AM
Just Say No to Atheism
Good thing I'm agnostic.
~String
Repo Man
08-20-08, 01:28 AM
Didn't you learn anything from the Soviet experience?
Just further reinforcement that state religions are a terrible thing.
Norsefire
08-20-08, 01:32 AM
The Soviet Union were self-proclaimed atheists.
Hmmm... no responses. Interesting.
phlogistician
08-20-08, 10:14 AM
Atheism is not believing in God.
Wow, eventually it sunk in.
clusteringflux
08-20-08, 10:29 AM
IMO ,the term "humanism" suggests that humans are the focus of the debate which has never been the case.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
IMO ,the term "humanism" suggests that humans are the focus of the debate which has never been the case.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct. What I pose is that it should be that way rather than the other way round. Humans SHOULD be the focus of the debate.
Even theists themselves are atheists in regards to other religions, hence the term atheism applies to both, making the term meaningless.
clusteringflux
08-20-08, 10:42 AM
Humans SHOULD be the focus of the debate.
Please explain. I'm still stuck on the Evolution/Creation noise.
DiamondHearts
08-20-08, 10:47 AM
Religious people do not refer to their religion as 'theism,' but by the name of their respective religions.
Please explain. I'm still stuck on the Evolution/Creation noise.
The debate is about humans, not gods.
Humans indoctrinate their children into cults. This is the primary problem, not some debate of theists silly claims of the supernatural, which are totally irrelevant. The root of the problem is indoctrination and the preclusion of the rational and reasonable in children.
Humans are slaves to religious ideologies. No one should really gives a rat's patootie which *insert deity du jour* is the real god or whether or not creationism is valid. All that does is pander to theists claims and defers from the real problem with cults; indoctrination.
We need to move beyond kowtowing to theists ideologies as they are little more than fantasies, which theists themselves are even unable to agree.
Why debate fantasies when the real problem remains unattended?
What we don't need is more atheist nuts thinking they should determine what other people should or should not believe. Thats more dangerous to the world and its people than anything else.
Who are silent on the atrocities committed against "humans" simply because they are theists. That kind of humanism we do not need. Keep your meaningless pointless teddy bears.
What we don't need is more atheist nuts thinking they should determine what other people should or should not believe. Thats more dangerous to the world and its people than anything else.
Sam is attempting to rerail the discussion back to the claims of theism and beliefs. The problem is the indoctrination of children. The beliefs are irrelevant.
Who are silent on the atrocities committed against "humans" simply because they are theists. That kind of humanism we do not need. Keep your meaningless pointless teddy bears.
Gibberish rant.
Religious people do not refer to their religion as 'theism,' but by the name of their respective religions.
By your own admission and words, you demonstrate the irrelevancy of your core beliefs and the irrelevancy of labeling those beliefs.
Your cult dehumanizes people like any other and raises the supernatural over and above all else. In other words, cults are the same in principle, the indoctrination of people into them. The beliefs themselves are entirely irrelevant.
Yes and we do not want our children to become "humanists" who remain silent or cheer on the oppression of people who do not share their beliefs.
EmptyForceOfChi
08-20-08, 11:48 AM
But it's a word that has a definition, atheists fit the definition of the word therefore they are atheists. Feel free to call yourself any ism you wan't your still an atheist even if it is a naturalistic humanistic atheist.
peace.
Yes and we do not want our children to become "humanists"
Yes, we know. You want to teach your children to cherish a medieval mindset of blind faith in the supernatural, teach them to lie and take violence as the option to settle differences, and teach them to hate those who don't share those beliefs.
Yes Sam, we know the problem.
But it's a word that has a definition, atheists fit the definition of the word therefore they are atheists. Feel free to call yourself any ism you wan't your still an atheist even if it is a naturalistic humanistic atheist.
I has as much credibility as the definition of Aunicornist or Aleprechaunist.
Yes, we know. You want to teach your children to cherish a medieval mindset of blind faith in the supernatural, teach them to lie and take violence as the option to settle differences, and teach them to hate those who don't share those beliefs.
Yes Sam, we know the problem.
Who's we? Why pretend you represent a world view? You're not an atheist, remember? And I don't see anyone here who agrees with you :rolleyes:
Who's we? Why pretend you represent a world view? You're not an atheist, remember? And I don't see anyone here who agrees with you :rolleyes:
So what? You yourself argued against consensus, yet here you are using it as an argument. As well, you yourself stated that you don't respond to posts if you agree with them.
I'm not the one with the royal "we" while denouncing "cults" :rolleyes:
Simon Anders
08-20-08, 12:42 PM
Theists themselves admit to faith as the primary driver of their beliefs,
some theists.
The term "Atheism" should no longer be used. If theists wish their beliefs to be known as theism, that's fine.
Naturalism or Humanism would be more appropriate terms to use for those who do not begin from the position that gods exist, but instead begin from the position of nature or humans, which apparently do exist.
Theists themselves admit to faith as the primary driver of their beliefs, hence their views should be classified as "Ahuman" or "Anatural" since those views elevate the supernatural up onto a pedestal while degrading mankind to that which is scraped off a boot.
If theist's are to hold their contrasting and negative views of reality as firm beliefs, theirs should be categorized as opposing, and not the other way round.
I agree.
some theists.
Not all? Could you expand on that?
I'm not the one with the royal "we" while denouncing "cults" :rolleyes:
Again, so what? There is most certainly a resounding "WE" when it comes to those who denounce cults.
Is that the Cult of Wii?
No, the cult of Playstation...
DiamondHearts
08-20-08, 12:57 PM
No, the cult of Playstation...
You mean the 600$ paper weight. Ever heard of Wii60?
Its probably the Cult of Wheeze.
The thread represents a key issue that many people have tried to address.
The choice is really quite clear -
1. A view where supernatural forces are the dominant factors in the universe and lives of people.
2. A view where natural forces are the only factors.
(1) Includes all religions and many related superstitions as well as countless imaginative mystical speculations.
(2) Has been adopted by many as a key idea in support of the Brights network. This is a serious attempt to move away from the array of confusing labels, such as atheism, humanism, skepticism, etc. All of which largely side with the positive naturalistic worldview concept.
The choice of the term "Bright" remains controversial and may indeed prevent many from accepting that label. In principle the basis is a sound idea and allows people to adopt a positive position on the big questions that religions also attempt to answer, but with equal weight, as opposed to the negative connotations that arise from disbelief or believing in a negative that come from atheism from example.
Here is a the link to the Brights network -
http://www.the-brights.net/
Quote -
What is a bright?
A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
The choice of the term "Bright" remains controversial and may indeed prevent many from accepting that label.
That is what I found as well, the term is somewhat confusing in that it does not even relate in any way to the definitions it proposes. It also gives the impression of arrogance, that "Brights" are intellectually superior.
"What is a bright?
A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview"
Considering that the only real difference is that theists were indoctrinated into their religions, they had no choice in the matter and through no fault of their own have been deprived of the ability to reason through their beliefs. They do still have the capacity to reason, if they could shake off the effects of indoctrination.
Q,
It also gives the impression of arrogance, that "Brights" are intellectually superior.Yup that's the problem. And no matter how much explanation that that was never the intent just doesn't help very much.
But I still think the idea behind the label is good and that is really my worldview - I just can't take the label.
glaucon
10-16-08, 04:36 PM
"We need to move beyond kowtowing to theists ideologies as they are little more than fantasies, which theists themselves are even unable to agree."
No, keep kowtowing. Atheists are beneath theists and should always kowtow when in our presence. Theists do agree. Judaism, Christianity and Islam make up a the dominate religions of the world and all three agree in a transcendant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
So, you're saying it's somehow not possible for large numbers of people to be delusional??
Thats like saying "are the outliers really the mean?"
Thats like saying "are the outliers really the mean?"
They aren't, they just do what's in their nature :p
"We need to move beyond kowtowing to theists ideologies as they are little more than fantasies, which theists themselves are even unable to agree."
No, keep kowtowing. Atheists are beneath theists and should always kowtow when in our presence. Theists do agree. Judaism, Christianity and Islam make up a the dominate religions of the world and all three agree in a transcendant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Your superiority complex has been noted. You provide us ample evidence to the dangers of your cult making the assertion that we are "beneath" you. However, if that is the case, and if it is people like you who are "above" me, then I'm damn glad not to be at your level, wherever it may be.
hi...
I'm atheist, not humanist. That's another religion.
Betrayer0fHope
10-16-08, 07:28 PM
Good to know.
KennyJC
10-17-08, 12:28 AM
I have no problem with the term atheist.
Humanism and naturalism just sounds a bit corny. I don't even know if I am either of those... I just don't believe in god t'is all, and I think atheist is the best word to use to describe that.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-17-08, 11:14 AM
I agree, stranger. We should stop potty training them too. They should be allowed their own decision, regardless of the parents' beliefs, about where, when and how to go potty.
I agree, stranger. We should stop potty training them too. They should be allowed their own decision, regardless of the parents' beliefs, about where, when and how to go potty.
Heh..
My 18 month old is known to dash out of the shower, straight onto the carpet and pees, all while giggling manically and runs back to the shower again.:bawl:
No amount of "aarrrggghhhhh no no no go to the potty" has worked. So yeah, sometimes they do go by their own volition.. anywhere and anytime.
*Sigh*
Children are feral.
Medicine*Woman
10-17-08, 02:00 PM
Heh..
My 18 month old is known to dash out of the shower, straight onto the carpet and pees, all while giggling manically and runs back to the shower again.:bawl:
No amount of "aarrrggghhhhh no no no go to the potty" has worked. So yeah, sometimes they do go by their own volition.. anywhere and anytime.
*Sigh*
Children are feral.
*************
M*W: Well, it would appear that
your toddler is quite normal.
Although I am a proponent of potty training, if we just didn't do anything, kids would be curious about potty habits and would learn from watching us. Maybe if we left our kids to their own instincts, there would be much less neurosis in them when they got older.
Just a thought.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-17-08, 02:03 PM
MW-You are silly. You have kids, don't you? Do you honestly believe we should leave them to their own devices without parental guidance?
Mr. Hamtastic
10-17-08, 02:04 PM
Bells-Could be worse. Mine used to crawl under the nightstand, take off the diaper, and poop. If we didn't catch the grunting noises, gawd what a mess.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-17-08, 02:28 PM
Religious indoctrination does a billion times more harm than a lack of potty training does.
Someone who's been indoctrinated wouldn't realize this.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-17-08, 02:35 PM
Stranger-A billion. You're sure? Not a thousand or a million or a trillion. You've measured then? How?
Medicine*Woman
10-17-08, 04:30 PM
MW-You are silly. You have kids, don't you? Do you honestly believe we should leave them to their own devices without parental guidance?
*************
M*W: Yeah, I have kids. I have grandkids. I have one great grandchild, so no, of course I don't believe in leaving them to their own devices. My point was that children learn by example. They love to copycat us. They like to act "big" to be more like us. If we didn't bother to potty train them, I think they would learn it on their own (not necessarily at an age we would be happy with), but they would eventually learn it on their own. What is so silly about human nature?
flameofanor5
10-21-08, 10:32 PM
Good thing I'm agnostic.
~String
An agnostic is someone who doesnt want to admit they're an atheist. >.>
Simon Anders
10-21-08, 11:03 PM
An agnostic is someone who doesnt want to admit they're an atheist. >.> There are so many psychics on Sciforums. It is really cool.
SkinWalker
10-21-08, 11:16 PM
An agnostic is someone who doesnt want to admit they're an atheist. >.>
The terms are not mutually exclusive. One is a position of epistemology; the other is a position of theology. Indeed, many are agnostic-atheists in that they contend that there is no good reason to accept that gods exist but acknowledge that the expanse of the universe prevents one from testing it empirically.
SkinWalker
10-21-08, 11:33 PM
Personally, I prefer the term atheist. It's simple and to-the-point in meaning: a-theist, "without gods."
Regardless of whatever non-atheists wish to define it as, this is the definition I accept and use. I reject any other and if they intend a definition which is "denies God" (with the capital "G" no less) or "angry at God," or any of the other definitions that assume, a priori that a god exists and that this god is theirs.
But I accept the term "atheist" and want no other when it comes to describing my lack of religion or lack of belief in any god-character. True, we don't refer to those that don't drink milk as "a-milk-drinkers" or those that don't smoke as "a-smokers." But we might if milk-drinking or smoking were social systems that sought to drive national and political policy in any significant way.
These two examples are, however, significantly present as norms in human society, such that we have descriptive and useful labels that delineates those that are lactose-intolerant from those that enjoy milk; and the non-smokers from those that pollute small-spaces with second hand smoke.
Labels have utility. Atheism and atheist are utilitarian terms.
Besides, if they were given up, what on earth would I do with all my black T-shirts with that big, scarlet letter "A" on them?
milk-drinking or smoking were social systems that sought to drive national and political policy in any significant way.
Yeah, it would suck if they had powerful lobbies and spent miilions of dollars to influence policy. Just imagine if one of them got declared its own food group! They might repress research for decades even though they cause cancer. The mind boggles.
Personally, I prefer the term atheist. It's simple and to-the-point in meaning: a-theist, "without gods."
Regardless of whatever non-atheists wish to define it as, this is the definition I accept and use. I reject any other and if they intend a definition which is "denies God" (with the capital "G" no less) or "angry at God," or any of the other definitions that assume, a priori that a god exists and that this god is theirs.
But I accept the term "atheist" and want no other when it comes to describing my lack of religion or lack of belief in any god-character. True, we don't refer to those that don't drink milk as "a-milk-drinkers" or those that don't smoke as "a-smokers." But we might if milk-drinking or smoking were social systems that sought to drive national and political policy in any significant way.
These two examples are, however, significantly present as norms in human society, such that we have descriptive and useful labels that delineates those that are lactose-intolerant from those that enjoy milk; and the non-smokers from those that pollute small-spaces with second hand smoke.
Labels have utility. Atheism and atheist are utilitarian terms.
Besides, if they were given up, what on earth would I do with all my black T-shirts with that big, scarlet letter "A" on them?
Aside from the tidbit that farmers and tobacco companies do actually have lobbyists that influence policies, I agree completely. I actually do prefer the term anti-theist for a person who takes such a hard stance on the existence of gods, but I suppose me defining their position is as audacious as a Christian trying to define mine.
Simon Anders
10-22-08, 11:46 AM
Personally, I prefer the term atheist. It's simple and to-the-point in meaning: a-theist, "without gods."
Regardless of whatever non-atheists wish to define it as, this is the definition I accept and use. I reject any other and if they intend a definition which is "denies God" (with the capital "G" no less) or "angry at God," or any of the other definitions that assume, a priori that a god exists and that this god is theirs.
If it was a philosopher who is also an atheist who defines atheist as those who lack a belief AND those who believe there is no God, would you agree with her use of the word?
If it was a philosopher who is also an atheist who defines atheist as those who lack a belief AND those who believe there is no God, would you agree with her use of the word?
I know you didn't ask me this, but I certainly would accept that definition.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.