Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Last edited:
-
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!
Atheism refutes itself by definition. (Y)=/=( ), ( )=/=(?)
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism definition problem
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I didn't say there was a need for the label,
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
A non-conceptual set represents the conceptual universal set, atheism is a concept within the universal set of all concepts.
There is and there will be for as long as people see theism as something worth sacrificing reason and ethics for.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
It already exists in the non-dual mind state, the moment you conceive of anything using the normal thinking mind, the complimentary opposite concept arises to maintain the sense of non-dual wholeness.
That is no reason to neglect the need to heal _this_ level of existence, you know.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
True, and it is not being neglected, just that evolution takes 'time' for the astute students to realize that there is no time outside of the conceptual mind,
You could be an atheist satanist, or atheist buddhist.
Yes, in which case you're religious, but not a theist.
I don't think you are missing anything, although idiot is not as good a choice as religious zealots that desire to impose their religious preferences on all. Antitheist is not a good choice of a name for being opposed to organized, politicized, religions with a theocratic proclivity.
I don't have a word that describes what I object to and want to see gone from the world. It is not religion or theism per se. It is two specific brands of theism that I object to, and even then, only one flavor within each. Many Christians who are also liberal and secularist would agree with me that their church should butt out of the lives of unbelievers.
Can you suggest a word that conveys that? You suggested anti-fundamentalist. That's probably more accurate, but also doesn't really convey the whole meaning. There's a fundamentalist (JW and creationist) that recently wrote on another thread, "The marriage of church and state was never advocated by Jesus Christ. (John 17:14-16; John 18:36; James 4:4) Meddling in politics is not something Christians were ever told to do. It just creates divisions, which destroys unity and leads to a complete breakdown in human relationships. Brotherly love is supposed to be the glue that holds Christians together. It is lost in political squabbling."
She is not what antitheism (or whatever name we choose) is directed towards. As I said, this is not about personal or private religion - prayer, Bible reading, witnessing, fellowshipping, etc. This purely anti-organized and -politicized religion that doesn't respect church-state separation.
The god of the Christian Bible is not good. I frequently challenge the claim that it is with a host of responses. But those are the kinds of claims that will get me discussing that god. Without them being made, why would I want to discuss Jehovah?
No, that is not what I am saying. See above.
For clarification, could you state the concept underlying atheism?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
If you choose to live your life as if gods definitely don't exist but only profess to lack belief in gods, then it is self-deception. It is more accurate for you to describe yourself in terms of strong atheism because that is how you actually choose to live your life. You appear to be saying that there is no difference in how weak atheists and strong atheists live their lives. If such a statement is true, then "weak" atheism and "strong" atheism is meaningless syntactic quibbling. There is no need to distinguish them if they are, in fact, indistinguishable.
An idea may be rejected precisely because it is not understood. For instance, fear of the unknown may not seem to be a rational response (because of the emotional overtones), but, in some ways, sticking to what we know does make sense.
A word for it might exist and, if not, I'm sure we can invent one.
Precisely. If there is no claim to discuss, then what is there to discuss? So it is with "weak" atheism.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The concept of atheism represents a belief that does not involve belief in the reality represented by the concepts of deity or deities.
And neither one captures the whole concept of atheism.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. The label applies both to people who have considered theistic claims and decided not to accept them as well as people who have no opinions at all on the existence of gods.
Out of curiosity: do other concepts that are also framed as a lack of something else also cause confusion for you?
- vegetarian
- civilian
- non-smoker
- etc.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Those are completely different concepts.
The term "atheism" encompasses many concepts.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Many theisms, not many concepts. Theism being a /the, concept here.
The term "theism" also encompasses many concepts.
I don't think so. I think that faith based thought of any kind is self-deception.
No, they are not.