|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:ListenerX/Why I am an "atheist"
Second paragraph says "an atheist can believe in fairies and Santa Claus, but YHVH is out", but last paragraph says the word "should be used to denote someone who disbelieves altogether in the supernatural". Is that contradiction deliberate? ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)
- The second paragraph is characterizing atheism as it is, the final one as I think it should be.
ListenerXTalkerX 14:16, 26 February 2009 (EST)
What an odd essay. It seems to be saying "If I redefine atheism to include all the gods I worship, then I'm an atheist." Okay, but so what? If you change the definitions to what you "think it should be", you could probably make Andy Schlafly an atheist. Which would be a good trick, but what would it accomplish, besides causing pain and suffering to a worst that never did you any harm? --Kels 23:11, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- My new definition is actually excluding me from being an atheist, no matter what constitutes a God. According to the traditional definition of atheism coupled with Prof. Dawkins's straw-man definition of "God," I am an "atheist." This, I think, illustrates two points:
- Prof. Dawkins is full of...
- It is not good to go around claiming that people's Gods are not actually Gods. That sort of thing is what would make Mr. Schlafly an atheist (as he would have been considered in ancient Rome, not believing in the Roman pantheon).
- ListenerXTalkerX 23:40, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- Well, there are a couple of problems there. First is that nobody expects a comment by Dawkins to be taken as THE definition of atheism. Atheism was around a long time before Dawkins was. The other is that in the context of his first chapter there, he seems to be largely talking about the big monotheistic religions that his readers will likely recognize. So context matters. If he was writing a dictionary, he'd have to be more rigorous. So if you're going to criticize part of a single line from an entire book by Dawkins, you should probably make it more explicit that's what you're doing. If you're criticizing the definition of atheism, then you're going to have to start with a commonly accepted definition, which this ain't. --Kels 23:53, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- Prof. Dawkins is not defining atheism in that sentence; he is defining "God." Furthermore, that is not exactly an insignificant line in the book; it spells out what he calls the "God Hypothesis," the basis for many of his later arguments that the existence of "God" can be scientifically tested. ListenerXTalkerX 00:21, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
- Prof. Dawkins is not defining atheism in that sentence; he is defining "God." Furthermore, that is not exactly an insignificant line in the book; it spells out what he calls the "God Hypothesis," the basis for many of his later arguments that the existence of "God" can be scientifically tested.
- Well, there are a couple of problems there. First is that nobody expects a comment by Dawkins to be taken as THE definition of atheism. Atheism was around a long time before Dawkins was. The other is that in the context of his first chapter there, he seems to be largely talking about the big monotheistic religions that his readers will likely recognize. So context matters. If he was writing a dictionary, he'd have to be more rigorous. So if you're going to criticize part of a single line from an entire book by Dawkins, you should probably make it more explicit that's what you're doing. If you're criticizing the definition of atheism, then you're going to have to start with a commonly accepted definition, which this ain't. --Kels 23:53, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Cut to talk[edit]
ListenerX says:
Despite having converted from atheism to a pagan religion with more Gods than can be counted on the hands, I am still an "atheist." Allow me to explain. Atheism is "the absence of belief in the existence of any gods."[1] Some sorts of atheists may have additional relevant beliefs, or lack of beliefs, but this is the common baseline. Although most arguments for atheism are grounded in philosophical naturalism or in science — with a disbelief in Gods following from a disbelief in everything supernatural — not everything supernatural is a God, and it is possible, some would say, to believe in the supernatural, even to worship certain supernatural entities, and still be an atheist — just because the believer does not call those supernatural entities "Gods." In other words, an atheist can believe in fairies and Santa Claus, but YHVH is out. As part of my religion I believe in a number of Gods in addition to other supernatural entities. Why, then, am I an atheist? Well, unlike the very objective distinction between the natural and the supernatural, the distinction between a God and a supernatural entity that is not a God is somewhat dodgy. So dodgy, in fact, that some atheists have had to say that just calling something a God does not make it one. Richard Dawkins said:[2] “ [I]f the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used ... to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. ” Therein lies the grind: the Gods of my religion are certainly supernatural, and appropriate for worship, but they are not creators. Even someone with enough sensory orifices sewn shut to maintain belief in a literal interpretation of the Norse myths — which I do not believe were meant to be taken literally in the first place — believes that the universe existed before any of the Gods did, and while some of the Gods had a hand in creating some parts of the universe, some of them did not, and none of them made the universe itself. This means that all of the things I call Gods are just plain old anthropomorphic personifications and my religion has no Gods to it. Therefore, I am an "atheist." So, to take a leaf from Prof. Dawkins's book, I believe that if the word "atheist" is not to become completely useless, it should be used to denote someone who disbelieves altogether in the supernatural.
From a reader, Pachomius, I say:
Richard Dawkins said:[2] “ [I]f the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used ... to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. ”
In the Christian faith the concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe is the following: "God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
So, atheists need not concern themselves with disbelief in all gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., just take up the God in the Christian faith.
Now, if in other religions their God is also in concept the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then they have the same God as God is in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.
That is the most important feature of God in the Christian faith, creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself, and that concept of God has no need of revelation, it can be known by all humans with a honest use of reason.
So, again, atheists, please direct your attention to God the creator of the everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
If you direct your attention to all and any other kinds of god, goddesses, deities, divinities, spaghetti, unicorn, teapot, tooth fairy, that is not directing your attention to the God in concept creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
Now, humans exist and the universe exists, and humans exist in the universe and are parts of the universe: therefore God exists, as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
The argument of atheists to be of any substance should be the following: Humans exist and the universe exists, and humans exist in the universe and are parts of the universe: therefore God does not exist, as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
Pachomius— Unsigned, by: 112.198.82.247 / talk / contribs