I am tired of a lable that says what I am not.

[Amhairghine]

I have never believed in any of the standard god of the Western World. I did not go around denying that any kind of god exists. I was labeled as Atheist (Lacking belief in gods) because I did not believe in the official God of the Church of Scotland. The term has always bothered me.

Would we ever call Stephen Hawking, a non-Marathon Runner? Would we call Jesus of Nazareth, a Non-Mongol.

Atheism says nothing about what I believe.

I have a belief system. Lately I have given names to scientific realities honouring them as others honour gods.

I prefer Naturalism with a Celtic Mythology imagery, because I do not believe in humanoid gods. I think that the virgin birth story of Jesus, his god-human hybrid status (minus a Y chromosome), and questionable death with magical resurrection...to be so inane as to be stupid in my opinion. Sorry but that is how I do feel.

As one who is almost obsessed with modern theoretical physics, astrophysics, and astronomy, I find the Celtic Gods to be poetically wonderful images of the causes, natural laws, and far superior to the Christian pantheon. It is simple.

The Sun is our father. He is Lugh (meaning light) and he fertilised our Mother Earth, Brigit to produce us.

We exist because of Earth compounds were acted upon by solar energy. We are the walking and talking chemical compounds that evolved into us only because Lugh the Sun impregnated Brigit our Mother Earth to produce the seeds that led to us.

Danu the Moon Goddess was the likely Mid-Wife. She stabilised Mother Earth's wobbly orbit with her balancing orbit like a gyroscope. She provided marine tides that have fostered some of the ocean life to move up onto land. Perhaps our first land ancestor came to land because of playing around in the tides.

Therefore, my Trinity is Lugh, Brigit, and Danu.

There is a super-Trinity. Obviously, Lugh had a father too. Lugh's father was the Singularity of the Big Bang whom I name Aed Álainn, the Celtic Father of the Gods.

Balor of the One Eye is the misbehaving god who kept quarks apart and prevented protons from attaching to each other with his weak atomic force. Everything remained energy in that short time universe. Balor's weak atomic force kept the energy particles from fusing into atoms.

Sila na nGig, the Matter Universe Mother was the Strong Atomic force. She overcame the weak repulsive force of protons with her strong atomic force and fused them into Hydrogen with an electron, and fused Hydrogen into Helium to make tremendous energy and form the first matter.

Therefore, our local Trinity was Lugh, Brigit, and Danu. The big big trinity was Aed Álainn, Balor, and Sila na nGig.

In every way religious people believe, I think that those forces are the closest entities to gods in the cosmos. Can I claim to be a Theist now and not get my passport to the US blocked?

Amhairghine

 

[gnomon]

Sure.

You're now a theist.

Wait.....what.......your passport is blocked?

 

[J Bryson]

It seems more like a metaphorical naturalism, which is as good a title as any.

 

[Papersock]

It seems more like a metaphorical naturalism, which is as good a title as any.

It at least sounds cooler than "atheist," I think.

I also like metaphorical deities. And I also don't want to define my beliefs with a negative.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm tired of you being tired. Maybe we all need a nap.

 

[dust1n]

Makes sense. I think we are all born atheists. It sucks there is a label for those who reject what was never established as truth anyways.

 

[Yerda]

I think we are all born atheists.

Not in any sense of the word I understand.

 

[dust1n]

Did you even have the ability to understand words at 1 years old? What about the concept of God at 3? If you are existing in a world, and can't even comprehend or even think words, how could you believe in God? You wouldn't believe in anything.

 

[Yerda]

Did you even have the ability to understand words at 1 years old? What about the concept of God at 3? If you are existing in a world, and can't even comprehend or even think words, how could you believe in God? You wouldn't believe in anything.

Listen, I accept that babies probably don't harbour belief in Jehovah or Krishna or whoever. Probably because, as you said, they lack comprehension. However, atheism, as far as I can tell, is not the state of blank incomprehension. It might be the outright rejection of the possibility that gods exist, or the more likely position that the evidence is insufficient to warrant belief but it isn't a position of total ignorance.

 

[dust1n]

Depends on your definition of Atheism. If an atheist has to first consider the option of a deity, and then out of knowledge of the subject take the stance of 'no god' to be considered an atheists, than you are right.


"Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]"

 

[Yerda]

Depends on your definition of Atheism...

If the definition includes babies, rocks, meteors, the element mercury, window panes, guitar strings, bumble-bees, etc I believe it stretches the concpet beyond any sense. That would be the broadest defintion in your dictionary snippet.

As an aside, I wonder why people use it as some kind of argument. We may well be been before we are capable of forming a belief in God, but we are also born without many beliefs that even a born again young earther wouldn't deny. We are all born without a belief in Paraguay but you wouldn't allude to that in a debate with a geographer.

 

[VeganCrustAtheist]

Yes it does! The difference between calling someone a "non marathon runner" is that him not running a marathon doesn't affect his personality or his views on the world or even his similarities/differences with other people in the slightest compared to religious differences.

If a person doesn't have a job you call him unemployed.

If a person lacks his legs you call him a cripple.

These things all have labels for what they aren't because they have a huge affect on somebodies life, just like atheism!

 

[filthy tugboat]

If the definition includes babies, rocks, meteors, the element mercury, window panes, guitar strings, bumble-bees, etc I believe it stretches the concpet beyond any sense. That would be the broadest defintion in your dictionary snippet.

Atheism is most broadly described as someone who does not identify themselves as a theist. The definition requires a person, not an inanimate object. Yes, I would suggest most if not all other animals are atheists.

As an aside, I wonder why people use it as some kind of argument. We may well be been before we are capable of forming a belief in God, but we are also born without many beliefs that even a born again young earther wouldn't deny. We are all born without a belief in Paraguay but you wouldn't allude to that in a debate with a geographer.

How do some people use atheism as some kind of argument?

 

[Yerda]

Atheism is most broadly described as...

That works for me if it invovles some amount of reflection on the part of the person.

How do some people use atheism as some kind of argument?

Usually in reference to us all "being atheist by default", because "babies are born atheist".

 

[Revoltingest]

Become a Revoltifarian.
Then they wouldn't know what the label means.
If they ask, you could explain as you see fit.

 

[Yerda]

Become a Revoltifarian.
Then they wouldn't know what the label means.
If they ask, you could explain as you see fit.

Does it involve revolting or becoming revolting?

 

[filthy tugboat]

That works for me if it invovles some amount of reflection on the part of the person.

It doesn't require any kind of reflection, atheism in a broad definition is a neutral stance, there are different types of atheism with additional beliefs and concerns regarding religion that do require reflection and information but atheism on it's own is a neutral stance describing what someone is not.

Usually in reference to us all "being atheist by default", because "babies are born atheist".

That is not an argument from atheism, it is a true statement. If atheism is defined as 'without theism' which is it's literal definition and babies are not theists then babies are subsequently atheists. Theism being a property of something capable of thought the title 'atheism' only reasonably applies to things capable of being theists. You could call inanimate objects atheists but it would be just as meaningful a statement as suggesting that lamps are not stamp collectors.

 

[Yerda]

It doesn't require any kind of reflection.

Then it's junk.

You could call inanimate objects atheists but it would be just as meaningful a statement as suggesting that lamps are not stamp collectors.

Then the problem is with the definition.

Atheism, possessing any kind of intellectual weight, involves a calculated rejection of theism. The defintions of the broadest kind are rubbish precisely because they imply a neutrality or just total ignorance. If that's what people mean when they discuss atheism, then you have to wonder why they bother to talk about it at all, there is no content.

 

[HonestJoe]

Atheism, possessing any kind of intellectual weight, involves a calculated rejection of theism.

Why does atheism have to carry any intelectual weight?

If that's what people mean when they discuss atheism, then you have to wonder why they bother to talk about it at all, there is no content.

It isn't what people mean when they discuss "atheism" in places like this but that doesn't stop it being a perfectly accurate definition of the word. When people discuss "theists" here, they are often really only thinking about mainstream monotheism with a vague wave to Hindus and Buddhists on the side. Theism is actually much wider and more generic than that image and in it's broadest sense is as irrelevant to any practical discussion as broad atheism.

The key point here is that in places like this it isn't atheism debating theism. It is individuals debating individuals, each with a unique and complex set of knowledge, experiences and beliefs, none of which can be described in a single word other than "me".

 

[filthy tugboat]

Then it's junk.

Not necessarily, atheism only seeks to define what someone is not, it tells you very little about what a person is.

Then the problem is with the definition.

How so?

Atheism, possessing any kind of intellectual weight, involves a calculated rejection of theism.

This is what a lot of people assume but as far as I'm aware the definition does not require this.

The defintions of the broadest kind are rubbish precisely because they imply a neutrality or just total ignorance.

That's because atheism is a neutral stance, strong atheism is not a neutral stance and there is a distinct difference between the two.

If that's what people mean when they discuss atheism, then you have to wonder why they bother to talk about it at all, there is no content.

There isn't supposed to be, the only reason it is talked about is because of theism.