Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[Koldo]

Hilarious. How is it completely arbitrary?

How many people do you think that conceive theism and God in the same way that you do ?

 

[Acim]

I hope I have exemplified the problem that comes with taking the high ground and saying that someone is theist or atheist when they say otherwise. By itself it simply adds nothing to the conversation.

Glad I added that something else to add to the conversation.

 

[Acim]

How many people do you think that conceive theism and God in the same way that you do ?

Theism - I estimate around 2 billion. That actually strikes me as conservative.
God - I estimate that intellectually conceive it in same way - around 100,000
Fairly close to the same say (but not the exact same), I'd go with, 10 million.
Experience it in similar way - everyone. I am tempted to say the same way.

 

[Koldo]

Theism - I estimate around 2 billion. That actually strikes me as conservative.
God - I estimate that intellectually conceive it in same way - around 100,000
Fairly close to the same say (but not the exact same), I'd go with, 10 million.
Experience it in similar way - everyone. I am tempted to say the same way.

What are you basing those numbers on?

 

[Acim]

What are you basing those numbers on?

Amount of people in the world (I estimate that total to be 7.5 billion).
For the first one (theism), the percentage of people, translated into a number, that can (intellectually) conceive of what theism means. I see it as simplistic, and am thinking all people I noted in response would say virtually the same thing: belief in god or gods (though that's actually not technically how I based it, but works for explanation, I think)

For the second one, first variation, the percentage of people (that intellectually conceive God same way I do) which are gnostic, new age Christian types. Though allowing leeway as I don't think it is strictly limited to Christianity (hence the gnostic part). With second variation, that number is based on what I'd call optimistic Christian types, and again could include other theist types (possibly even agnostic types). 10 million actually strikes me as conservative, but chose to be conservative in all my estimates. With the last variation (regarding experience), that's based on the Knowledge that comes with being a gnostic. The temptation to say it is the same way reflects my current level of faith, along with what I see as being reasonable. Would be a matter of debate, but since I was aiming for conservative estimation, I went with similar rather than same. Still tempted to go with same.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yup, that's what I aim to do. Still get jumped on for it. Oh well.

Sometimes I might use the term "scientism" instead, as it is typically a centerpiece of the ideological/religious variety (the if "science" doesn't say so, it is rubbish mentality). But folks don't identify as adherents of scientism, they identify as atheists, so it seems more respectful to maintain the label they use for themselves. Is this wrong?

Let's try another tact then.
If I speak to someone, and they define their thoughts on life via the term 'atheism' and expect me to know and agree with what that means (usually some form of rationalism), I get annoyed. Never seen anything in the atheist's handbook that says an atheist needs to be rational, logical or intelligent.

People making more of the word than it means ARE problematic, in my opinion. In this, it's as often an atheist making the mistake as a non-atheist, in my experience, but that's kind of beside the point. The bleed through happens. There is no group responsible for speaking for atheists. There is no atheist more qualified than another to speak for atheists.

Why should small a atheists (in your terms) be happy to have some sort of ideological position described using the exact same word? You can do it, for sure. And your intention here makes sense to me. But the original comment I responded to was from @Augustus around not understanding why atheists got miffed at this. From my position, it's pretty obvious. You don't have to agree, and you can think it's silly, but I reserve the right to be miffed. Making more of atheism than it is seems counter-productive on many levels, regardless of who is doing it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The meaning becomes clear by context. The same issue happens with the word Paganism, where I also don't use "paganism" and "Paganism" to mean the same thing. A good communicator will practice active listening and ask for clarification where necessary. Problem is, many people are poor communicators and don't do this (or they just don't care or are unaware of linguistic nuances).

For me, I nearly always mean Paganism-as-religion when I talk about it. When I talk about atheism, I only occasionally take that usage (though in part because people around here freak out about it if I do and it's just not worth those arguments).

Responded to your last post, which I know wasn't addressed directly to me, so apologies if I repeat myself here somewhat.

I am actually a good communicator, all evidence here to the contrary. But what you're talking about here goes far beyond direct communication. As you know, words are living things. Atheism didn't have it's current meaning when first used. I don't want atheism to become synonymous with some form of hard materialism, anti-theism or a defined dogma. But every conversation in which atheism is used as a synonym for those concepts is one which moves the common word usage more in that direction.

It's not about conversations like this one that I'm directly involved in. I'm confident in my ability to discern someone's meaning and move beyond term usage, and I think I'm generally okay at that here, as an example. But equally, I'm not going to sign off on what I see as an incorrect usage of the word, even if that means fighting a losing battle.

You, of all people here, should have some empathy for that, if not agreement.

 

[Koldo]

Amount of people in the world (I estimate that total to be 7.5 billion).
For the first one (theism), the percentage of people, translated into a number, that can (intellectually) conceive of what theism means. I see it as simplistic, and am thinking all people I noted in response would say virtually the same thing: belief in god or gods (though that's actually not technically how I based it, but works for explanation, I think)

For the second one, first variation, the percentage of people (that intellectually conceive God same way I do) which are gnostic, new age Christian types. Though allowing leeway as I don't think it is strictly limited to Christianity (hence the gnostic part). With second variation, that number is based on what I'd call optimistic Christian types, and again could include other theist types (possibly even agnostic types). 10 million actually strikes me as conservative, but chose to be conservative in all my estimates. With the last variation (regarding experience), that's based on the Knowledge that comes with being a gnostic. The temptation to say it is the same way reflects my current level of faith, along with what I see as being reasonable. Would be a matter of debate, but since I was aiming for conservative estimation, I went with similar rather than same. Still tempted to go with same.

And how many of those would agree with: '...everyone is a theist about something (and arguably all the time).' ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See my response to Valjean that references a post I made earlier.

I don't see how that adds anything to this discussion.

What is "worship" to you?

This definition from Google is close enough:

"the acts or rites that make up a formal expression of reverence for a deity;"

... though I would extend the definition to include similar expressions directed toward things that aren't gods.

The key elements for "worship", IMO, is that it's:

- an act, rite, practice, etc. It's something that's done as the result of a decision to undertake it.

- intended as an expression of reverence.

That is one usage of the term "religious." There are several others. I was using one of the others. Hopefully that clarifies.

Those other definitions are generally metaphors drawn from the root definition and don't denote literal religion (e.g. "he watches Wheel of Fortune religiously")... like how we use the phrase "vicariously" to describe things that would be very out-of-keeping for a typical vicar.

In any case, you say you were using your own definition. What definition were you using?

No, that is not what I mean, and not what I said. Ultimately, labeling a behavior as "religious" or not is attributive. Any and all behaviors can be described as "religious" or can be acts of devotion or worship in a particular religion. It is part of why I don't see these divides that you do. I notice this a lot because I am part of a religious minority of my country. Most folks stuck in the Abrahamic classical monotheist morass would call something like planting trees "not religious," or call studying natural sciences "not religious," or call wearing a necklace of planet earth "not religious." Well, for me, it is "religious" - and in the sense that you mentioned earlier of "relating to religion." It is all religion, to somebody. And it is all irreligion, to someone else. So I do not see this divide.

The more you try to describe my beliefs and views, the more it becomes apparent that you really don't know what I believe.

Planting trees - or any other activity - can be "religious" or "irreligious" depending on the intent behind it. If tree-planting is used by someome as a method of worship, then it may very well be religious for them. However, this doesn't mean that tree-planting is necessarily religious for someone else.

There is a divide between "religious" and "not religious"; it's based on people's intent and the tenets of all the religions out there. Any given activity can be "religious" at one point and "not religious" at another point depending on who is doing it and why.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am one of these people.

Do you believe that the word "God" refers to nothing more than love? If I listed off some things that are commonly attributed to God but that love can't do on its own, would you respond with "love can't do these things, so God didn't do them"?

 

[Willamena]

By giving yourself the right to impose a certain (and recklessly inflated at that) take on it on everyone else.

That is just dishonest.

How does that differ from imposing a take of denial about the usefulness of the term New Atheism?

 

[LuisDantas]

How does that differ from imposing a take of denial about the usefulness of the term New Atheism?

You must be joking.

"New Atheists" was a catchphrase used at a certain point to draw attention to a certain group. It in no way reflects any actual meaning of its own.

While the idea that "everyone is a theist about something" is simple fantasy.

 

[Segev Moran]

Not everyone even has a conception of deity.

For this claim to make sense, you would have to begin by defining what you mean by "theism". And in so doing you will unavoidably clash with other people's definitions.

for me it means a person that believes there is a God/s that takes an active part in our day to day lives.
when I say God, I mean an Entity that is beyond our natural existence and has the ability to manipulate our universe in a way that might "break" the knowledge we have today regarding how the universe works.

 

[Segev Moran]

It's precisely the same evidence as for the claim that there is an adult African elephant in my living room.

excluding the fact that you can observe your entire room and not see the African elephant..
We can't observe the entire universe and beyond and see that there is no God.

 

[Segev Moran]

I disbelieve that.

I am glad
Its your right, Yet I am the only one who can claim truth about my beliefs

 

[Willamena]

Let's try another tact then.
If I speak to someone, and they define their thoughts on life via the term 'atheism' and expect me to know and agree with what that means (usually some form of rationalism), I get annoyed. Never seen anything in the atheist's handbook that says an atheist needs to be rational, logical or intelligent.

It's no part of the definition of "atheism," but as an epistemological term it defines an outlook of disbelief, specifically "disbelief in God or gods."

People making more of the word than it means ARE problematic, in my opinion. In this, it's as often an atheist making the mistake as a non-atheist, in my experience, but that's kind of beside the point. The bleed through happens. There is no group responsible for speaking for atheists. There is no atheist more qualified than another to speak for atheists.

Each individual may bear the responsibilty for assessing their own private epistemic state. It needn't be about anyone else.

Why should small a atheists (in your terms) be happy to have some sort of ideological position described using the exact same word? You can do it, for sure. And your intention here makes sense to me. But the original comment I responded to was from @Augustus around not understanding why atheists got miffed at this. From my position, it's pretty obvious. You don't have to agree, and you can think it's silly, but I reserve the right to be miffed. Making more of atheism than it is seems counter-productive on many levels, regardless of who is doing it.

 

[Willamena]

excluding the fact that you can observe your entire room and not see the African elephant..
We can't observe the entire universe and beyond and see that there is no God.

Not excluding that, as that's all that really matters. A "god" is said to be omnipresent.

 

[Willamena]

You must be joking.

Another denial...

 

[LuisDantas]

Another denial...

It should be obvious really, but as it happens I spelled it out in the previous post since.

 

[Willamena]

You must be joking.

"New Atheists" was a catchphrase used at a certain point to draw attention to a certain group. It in no way reflects any actual meaning of its own.

While the idea that "everyone is a theist about something" is simple fantasy.

You just said it's precise meaning and then, in the same breath, denied that it has any meaning.