Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nate on August 19, 2009 at 12:18pm

Nicely explained, Don. I do think, without taking anything away from atheism, that metaphysical naturalism is more satisfying as a worldview- more positive, more useful. It's an attempt to examine the reasons for and consequences of human behavior with honesty and compassion. The atheism of some seems to be solely concerned with vanquishing theism. Perhaps I'm confusing atheism with antitheism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on August 19, 2009 at 12:53pm

Labels are both highly useful and utterly meaningless. ;)

Thanks for your thoughts, Don.

Permalink Reply by Jennifer W on August 19, 2009 at 10:03am

Atheism cause and Atheism are two totally different things for me.

I'm not really in the movement, (Mostly because I'm fairly antisocial). I'm more of the type that wants people to think individually for themselves. If you are an atheist because I'm an atheist, you are being a follower. But if you are a theist and to you in your own mind came to that conclusion, I'll respect that better than being a follower.

I like calling myself an atheist. To me the world makes more sense w/o a fake deity and fake rules and fake meanings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D'Holbach on August 19, 2009 at 10:58am

I reject the implication that wanting to be part of a cause larger than oneself makes one a follower. People can think independently even if they are part of a group.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer W on August 19, 2009 at 11:25am

Oh, no, I apologize, but I wasn't saying that at all. Being part of a cause does not make you a follower, whatsoever. I'm saying my point of view about people in general, they don't have to be a part of church or a cause to be a follower. Some people follow their parent's set of views, their friend's POV, a clergymen, without taking time to think for themselves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D'Holbach on August 19, 2009 at 11:33am

Thanks for the clarification, Jennifer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Croft on August 20, 2009 at 12:13am

Hello everybody! I find this a fascinating question. It is because of discussions like these that I describe myself as a Humanist, rather than as an "atheist". The important thing for me is that atheism (whether it is a "thing" or not) does not commit you to any particular way of living or viewing the world. Strictly, it doesn't even commit you to a non-supernaturally-saturated world-view, necessarily - I have met plenty of New-Age atheists.

I prefer to describe my belief system in a way which actually articulates something about what I do believe in terms of how people should act and relate to each other - hence Humanism (sometimes with the prefix "Secular").

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D'Holbach on August 20, 2009 at 8:25am

I agree, James--atheism itself is rather anemic as a world view. I prefer the term "Secular Humanism," as it indicates, at least in a general way, what one does believe in; "atheism" merely indicates a lack of belief in theism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D'Holbach on August 20, 2009 at 5:07pm

(I just needed to tidy up a glitch in the second paragraph. This post belongs right before Don's instead of right after it.)

Perhaps "absence" is a more suitable term than "lack"; "absence" is indeed a more neutral word. My discomfort with the word "atheism" has something to do with its rhetorical cargo: in English and French, at least, the term began its life as an insult, and, regrettably, it still carries that connotation in some circles. Of course, plenty of other terms started their lives as insults, and in many instances the "labeled" managed, nevertheless, to redefine the words for their own purposes or to give them a more positive valence: leveller, whig, tory, fauvist, consequentialist, and so forth.

Yet while the term "atheism" does some useful lexical work, I would contend that the word is itself deficient in many contexts, as it is defined as the absence of something else. That something else, theism, is still setting the terms of the debate, both philosophically and rhetorically. Thus, I prefer the term "humanist" to the term "atheist" for the same reason that I prefer being "healthy" to being "asymptomatic": as "healthy" denotes a state that goes beyond the mere absence of symptoms, so "humanist" moves beyond "theism" rather than merely negating it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin on August 20, 2009 at 5:52am

I view my atheism as more than it's definition. I view it as being an activist for our rights as non-believers - in mattters of church state separation. I view it as showing atheists as positive people who are regular humans, just trying to live our lives as happy as joyous as possible. I am always an Athiest, out and proud - the more people know us the less the stigma will continue.

Although I suppose my worldview would be better defined as humanist, I never use that word as many people have no idea what it means.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on August 20, 2009 at 8:50am

MG, I think atheism is not a statement at all. Instead, it's a word that refers to...

Don, you've made this point several times in this discussion, and you're etymologically right, but you sure can understand that, to many people, there's more in this word than its etymology. Why would all these people join Atheist Nexus if it wasn't the case?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rev Hellbound Alleee on August 22, 2009 at 6:41pm

To me, atheism is the word it is. It has nothing to do with citizenship (thank "Bob")! What I choose to follow or lead with as my worldview is my choice entirely, thanks to my atheism, which allows me to have a mind free of misconceptions about the way the universe workds.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page