Atheism is whatever atheists say it is...
... Honestly guys, this helps atheists as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with this assessment, largely because...
It could also be argued that the etymology is athe- (no god/s) -ism (a practice or quality of). It could simply be the person "being, without God".
Atheism is not a self-referential system (such as, say; mathematics
). In fact, it is almost the
definition of irony. A logical position named from the completely illogical first principle, hmmm...
Let me tell it in my words. For the longest time, my religion was Antichristianity. Not anti-Christian, not anti-Bible nor -church; just against a mindset that formed rigid, non-empirical doctrine of dangerously narrow scope. It has been my experience that everybody is an "atheist" on the job first thing Monday morning; yet very few carry the same title come Sunday. Everybody knows the Bible says "render unto Caesar;" meaning a mind must also be put to worldly concerns. If atheism was simply "god doesn't exist," there would be nothing to say; and no branch of reasoning carrying the ironic title to not say it. Allow me to demonstrate my atheism- the Flying Spaghetti Monster is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard - and I believe that is only the second time in my life I have mentioned His Noodliness.
One must know the enemy to successfully counter the enemy - and I'll say it if you guys don't wanna - the concept that revealed religion offers the only truth needs to be de-conceptualized. I feel that many atheists abhor religion "because it is just plain evil and/or wrong" and thus do not wish to be stigmatized by the label of "religion." This need not occur, as religion is neither evil nor wrong; it is merely entrenched. What is required is an entrenching tool.
Besides, if atheists all of a sudden became more organized, more focused in their objections, and started thinking more like a religion; the rigid religionists would start to worry. (Muah-ha-ha-ha... since there's no little devil dude). But hey, it's all you. I'm just sitting at home doing math.
Why not? Evolution is a scientific theory. If Darwin's writings are about evolution then his followers, in their 'fellowship', will follow a doctrine of evolution. These people would identify themselves as a a group like any other religion but claim 'truth' and have the typical religious 'us' and 'you' mentality.
Dawkins...
Nobody claimed such a thing. Taoism is a practice, and it is empirical in nature.
I used to label my religion as Taoist because I always thought it was an inside joke. The tao is only "unexplainable," not supernatural. To me, it's just like color; one either sees it, or one doesn't. As an aside, if you don't mind, is Taoish akin to following the tao; just with a little extra?
