Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, Alceste, I've got you now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A question for atheists who don't believe in God
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
OK, Alceste, I've got you now.
invisible chzbrgr
Member
It was a discussion early in the thread; Willamena clarified that she meant (I think) strong atheists as opposed to agnostic atheists.
Alright; but the point of the thread is not for atheists to define "God", but to describe what it is that they invest disbelief in. Your post #77 works for that.
To say that an atheist is "a person who does not believe in God" is trivializing the concept. A theist has a whole field of study backing up his belief; an atheist should have no less.
Alceste
Vagabond
Willamena, I don't see where you're going with that. I need a whole "field of study" to back up my lack of belief in something? And I need to define it too? That's a tall order. Wouldn't it be more productive to ask non-theists to describe what they do believe in, and what fields of study back that up?
Atheism does not make any assertions that one could "study" - it simply does not make one particular assertion. Unless you want to say the fields of physics, biology, chemistry, psychoanalysis, geology, anthropology, archaeology, sociology and philosophy are a few of the fields of study that "back up" atheism. I certainly wouldn't argue with that.
Atheism does not make any assertions that one could "study" - it simply does not make one particular assertion. Unless you want to say the fields of physics, biology, chemistry, psychoanalysis, geology, anthropology, archaeology, sociology and philosophy are a few of the fields of study that "back up" atheism. I certainly wouldn't argue with that.
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in "something" though --it's subject is "God". Theology is the study they should be at least remotely aquainted with in order to argue against it. If one doesn't know on what belief in God is based (theology) then one is left in the position of composing arguments against something they know nothing about. Conversely, when one thinks they know what God is about, their arguments reflect their image of "God". My intent is to get at that image.
Definition is not necessary; a description will do nicely, thank you.
Good responses, so far.
Alceste
Vagabond
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in "something" though --it's subject is "God". Theology is the study they should be at least remotely aquainted with in order to argue against it. If one doesn't know on what belief in God is based (theology) then one is left in the position of composing arguments against something they know nothing about. Conversely, when one thinks they know what God is about, their arguments reflect their image of "God". My intent is to get at that image.
Definition is not necessary; a description will do nicely, thank you.
No, the "subject" of atheism is not "God". It's all the gods. It's not specifically the god of Abrahamic monotheism atheists don't believe in, it's every god and goddess humanity has ever come up with, and usually a host of angels, demons and spirit guides into the bargain. Whatever invisible entities anybody believes are interfering with our earthly lives, for better or worse, atheists do not believe in them.
I can't study all of the supernatural beings I don't believe in - it would take my whole life. Besides, no matter how hard I try there will always be some obscure dryad in some godforsaken jungle manipulating the fortunes of some tribe I've never even heard of, and I'll be back to square one.
However, by concentrating on what I do believe rather than what I don't, I can cover the whole shebang with a bit of amateur Jungian-Campbellian psychoanalytical theorizing. I do believe humans are often inclined to attribute agency. We also struggle with the fact of our insignificance and powerlessness. We are also very imaginative and have difficulty translating subconscious metaphor into conscious meaning without desiring our inner world to have an objective, external truth to it, so we have invented a spectacular pantheon of supernatural "agents" to thank or to blame for our good luck or bad.
It sounds to me like you've fallen for the Christian trick of pretending atheism is all about them, and their god, but I can assure you Yahweh has no special significance for people who don't believe in anybody's gods. The atheists on the forum say it regularly enough - "what's the difference between Christ and Zeus?" But it never seems to sink in.
Granted some atheists in the forum have a personal history with Christianity - some have even harboured a belief in the Christian god at one time - but I distinctly remember one of these being equally irritated that Christians think their personal god holds some special place in his now-atheistic heart.
I agreed.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Because she used the term "God" (capital g and all) and the term "theology", (which to the extent of my knowledge, primarily concerns itself with the Christian deity.) If she were talking about another god, she would have used its name, I think. Zeus, Diana, Shiva, Guan Yin, whatever. As far as I know it's mostly Christians, Jews and Muslims who call their gods "God."
In any case, my point is unchanged no matter which god(s) or goddess(es) she was referring to.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Lots of people capitalize God every time they write it. Abrahamism doesn't have an exclusive claim.
Where in the world did you get that idea? From the Wiki:
Theology is the study of the existence or attributes of a god or gods, or more generally the study of religion or spirituality. It is sometimes contrasted with religious studies: theology is understood as the study of religion from an internal perspective (e.g., a perspective of commitment to that religion), and religious studies as the study of religion from an external (e.g., a secular) perspective.[1] Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of myriad religious topics. It might be undertaken to help the theologian:
The word "theology" has classical Greek origins, but it was taken up in both Greek and Latin forms by Christian authors, and it is the history of the term in Christian contexts, particularly in the Latin West, that lies behind most contemporary usage, even though the term can now be used to speak of reasoned discourse within and about a variety of different religious traditions.[8]
- understand more truly his or her own religious tradition,[2]
- understand more truly another religious tradition,[3]
- make comparisons between religious traditions,[4]
- defend or justify a religious tradition,
- facilitate reform of a particular tradition,[5]
- assist in the propagation of a religious tradition,[6] or
- draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present situation or need,[7]
The word "theology" has classical Greek origins, but it was taken up in both Greek and Latin forms by Christian authors, and it is the history of the term in Christian contexts, particularly in the Latin West, that lies behind most contemporary usage, even though the term can now be used to speak of reasoned discourse within and about a variety of different religious traditions.[8]
I thought it was pretty clear she meant any God.
That wasn't implied in my statement, but I know the ways in which it could be interpreted that way. It is sufficient if you take "God" to mean any or all gods or supernatural entities. I simply mean it to refer to the Image of God.
That wasn't implied, either. Knowing something of one would be sufficient to have grounds for disbelief. For instance, saying that you disbelieve because of a supernatural nature implies some knowledge of what "supernatural" means.
That would suffice as a study on which to base atheism. In many ways I see Campbell's quest to get his understandings published as a pursuit of theology.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
It wasn't my intent to trivialize anything. It just seemed like a redundancy to me, that's all.
Alceste
Vagabond
Which in no way alters or rebuts my point.
DarkMaster24
Active Member
Alceste = ownage of Storm. Storm, do you get your strawmen arguements from the graveyard of bad ideas?
I don't believe there is any study that anyone is exempted from studying either internally or externally. I think we humans are just that clever.
Normal convention is that when a noun is capitalized, it's a name or title. I can't be sure what every fringe group does, but AFAIK the only mainstream religions that use the word "god" as the name or title of one particular god are the Abrahamic ones.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Do you even know what a strawman is?
Or a noun. Consider it a result of two years of high school German under Herr Heinrich, then.
Alceste
Vagabond
In this context it would be your graceful arabesque from the clear statement "I don't believe in anybody's god(s)" into coy, sophistic musings on why I am so particularly focussed on Yahweh.