"Atheists": I guess what I'm trying to say is...?

Question

I've been at it for a few questions now, asking about agnosticism and atheism. I've come to the general consensus that nearly every atheist thinks when I say "god", I mean a supernatural, personal, omnipotent, omniscient deity--which is just absurd, really! Furthermore, they claim that agnosticism is useless, because it's impractical. They say, "of course I'm an agnostic! we ALL are, everyone really is, but what does that do? I'm an atheist because I don't believe in supernatural god(s)."

So is that what this is all about? An atheist only calls him or herself an "atheist" against one definition of god? Well then it's so limited! It's like the term only exists to oppose a single thing: theism. But what does it say about YOU, otherwise? It's like you're limiting your own concept of what's really out there, and what this is all about to opposing someone else's views! Isn't it?

Religion =/= Christianity, or belief in a supernatural anything.

Answer 1

Actually, I agree with you. I am a atheist. But I must admit that I base the idea of god off of religions based here on Earth.



We could be so far off from the idea or concept of what god is, it could be almost funny.



We think we are so infallible. That is why we have religion in the first place right?

Answer 2

>nearly every atheist thinks when I say "god", I mean a supernatural, personal, omnipotent, omniscient deity--which is just absurd, really!



You mean aside from the fact that that's what fits the definition of the word 'god'?



If you say 'god', then mean it. If you mean something else, then use a different term. There are usually many terms available, and if there aren't you can make one up. Using 'god' as a synonym for the Universe itself, for example, doesn't make any sense. I know it's nice to feel like your arguments are successful because other people can't understand what you're saying, but really it just confuses everybody and we'd be better off without it.



>So is that what this is all about? An atheist only calls him or herself an "atheist" against one definition of god?



Not just one definition of 'god'. THE definition of 'god'.



Let's look at an analogy. Imagine that I come onto Yahoo Answers and ask people what's the best way to kill a mattress. Everyone naturally responds with something along the lines of 'wtf? Even if you could kill a mattress, why would you want to?' I then come back and smugly accuse everyone else of thinking that when I say 'mattress', I necessarily mean a thick, flat, soft thing covered in cloth that people sleep on, and that my definition of the word 'mattress' is a large mammal with hooves and antlers and which eats swamp plants (what others would normally call a 'moose').



So, did I win an argument there? No. Did I demonstrate that everyone who answered my question is close-minded and stubborn? No. All I did was confuse everybody for no good reason. And it's the same thing here: If you're going to use the word 'god', then use it properly because not doing so doesn't do anyone any good. If you would like to argue for a new definition, then go right ahead...but in the meantime, use the proper one, all right? It makes things so much easier for everybody, and at the expense of a little smug satisfaction on your part, I think it's well worth it.



>It's like the term only exists to oppose a single thing: theism.



Actually, 'atheism' is often assumed to carry the connotation of disbelief in all supernatural beings or forces. This isn't strictly true, but usually when someone calls themselves an atheist people assume that they not only don't believe in God but also don't believe in ghosts, unicorns, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything else along those lines. At any rate, atheism does not just exist to oppose theism. This is actually an argument I've seen brought up before, and more specifically: That if there were no theism, there would also be no atheism. This is of course absurd. It's like saying that if no one had hair, no one would be bald, or that if no wine glasses were full, none of them would be empty. It doesn't make any sense.



>Someone told me "agnosticism misses a point" in that it only focuses on the obvious: that the knowledge of god is unknowable



And you know what? A thousand years ago, one could have just as easily claimed that the workings of the Moon and the stars were unknowable. Actually, nothing that is at all relevant is unknowable in the long term. If there is a god whose existence has any effect on anything we can observe, then its existence is knowable. And if its existence DOESN'T have any effect on anything we can observe, then for all practical purposes it might just as well not exist.

Answer 3

I'm trying to figure out if this is a rant or you just don't know what the word atheist means.



Do you honestly think that because you've read a few posts from people claiming to be atheists that you now have millions of people all figured out?



=



"My point is, the term atheism is completely geared toward a single, narrow-minded definition of god"



Arrogant presumptuous nonsense. The word in it's basic definition is a descriptive term for anyone with a lack of belief in all deities.



You're pretending that somehow all atheists stop there and that's all that they are. The fact is after that lack of belief in deities an atheist can believe or not in any infinite number of things. It's you who is narrow minded in your notion of what an atheist is.



But you have a lot of company. Nearly every criticism of atheists I see here the person has to first narrowly define the word before they can then criticize the narrow definition they just made up.



==



"Do you even know of the words you speak."



Yes. And the entire world is indeed composed of people who are theists or not theists. That however does not. I'll say it once more. That does not mean that this is ALL that people are.



"I'm simply saying you're basing your definition of god off of a narrow-minded definition someone else"



You're being presumptuously arrogantly again. What does the prefix 'a' mean? Look it up and you'll find the flaw in your entire notion.



==



"This question is in reaction to 90% of Y&A atheists criticizing me"



So you feel qualified to criticize millions of people because you got criticized by .000001 percent of atheists?



==



"an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities"

Precisely. How many times are you going to declare that you know what millions of people you've never met think and do?



"nearly every atheist thinks when I say "god", I mean a supernatural, personal, omnipotent, omniscient deity"



Sound familiar?

==

"or am I criticizing an ideology that hypothetical people, including the real ones that I've encountered and interacted with on this network over a span of time, subscribe to?"



Sounds to me like you're criticizing people who fall under the definition of a word that is descriptive. A person doesn't have to ascribe to any ideology at all to be an atheist. Again the word is descriptive of anyone at all who is 'not a theist'. Did you bother looking up the prefix 'a'?



==



"if you want a good example of what I'm talking about"



No actually I don't because neither one nor a thousand examples would lend any credibility to your claim to know what I think or millions of other people think.

==



" You're considering me to be way too hostile"

I said you were arrogant and presumptuous and you still are. You're presuming again to know what I think. And that is arrogant.



"it means literally "without theism"), its use, and the general belief of the definition of "god" to be hand-in-hand with "theism"."



Finally you looked it up. Think about that. It's anyone at all who does not believe in deities of the classic theistic definition. Think hard now. If you have some belief that does not NOT fall under the definition of theism does a word that means 'without theism' apply to that?



==

"For the last time, this question is aimed at those in particular that tout the word "atheism"'



Sorry you don't get to pretend you've been saying something else all along. I can post your original quote about what "nearly every atheist thinks" if it helps. I'm not ignoring what you said in fact I cut and pasted it.

Answer 4

Wow this is a whole new level of stupidity. Look up a dictionary; atheism IS to oppose theism.



If your God aint an omnipotent, omniscient deity, then we can foreseeably pull him/her/it/them/cheeseburger down from the 'heavens' and beat the living sh*t out of him.

If God were omnipotent and omniscient, unlike the useless one above; then all we need show is that such a being cannot logically exist in this continuum- which it can't.



We don't give a fudge of other people's opinions and by admitting to the powers of reasoning we are again far from any limitation. I suggest going back to the old school theist questions!



PS- agnosticism is something people with no balls (sorry ladies, no equivalent for you) admit to. I have far greater respect for theists than I have for agnostics, belief-wise.

Answer 5

You aren't talking about religion, you're talking about spirituality, which is a much broader subject. I don't believe in God, I believe in people. I do have morals. Spirituality and morality don't have to be linked to religion. It's just that a lot of people think that they do. I formed a moral code based on individual accountability and a sense of responsibility towards others.



You are viewing Atheism as a religion, or as a belief system, which it is not. Some theists try to turn it into one so that they can point out the flaws that it would have as a religion, if it were one. Atheism means not believing in God, that's it. You need to look further into the individual person to learn more about their beliefs, because Atheism itself doesn't encompass all that a religion does.

Answer 6

Well, I've never met an atheist who has said God is 100% impossible. All I know is that between a system with a Divine Being and one without a Divine Being, by most definitions of Divine being, the latter is simpler and therefore more viable.

Of course, we could go by the Hindu/Buddhist concept of God being all, not necessarily a conscious entity, but that gets into metaphysics...

I prefer quantum.

So I'll stick with atheism.

Answer 7

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree that the word "God" can be defined in many different ways. The basic definition of God means a supernatural being that has consciousness. If you can just define "God" any way you want, then it renders the word moot. You might as well just erase it out of the dictionary. It tends to be a popular tactic amongst theists to try to find just about any way they can to say that atheists really do believe in God deep down, and they will even do so by redefining the word "God" until atheists are forced to say "Well...if you put it THAT way...", then they become all proud of themselves and try to claim victory in their assertion that there are no real atheists. If you wanted to call a chair "God", then I would have to admit that I believe in God.



It is understood by most people that when people talk about "God", they are referring to a magical, invisible, conscious, supernatural being.

Answer 8

Every single atheist has different beliefs, different thoughts, different ideas and ideals about life. Atheism does not say much about us personally, because atheism ONLY defines what we believe regarding gods (that none exist).



I think its pretty unanimous that atheists don't believe in any gods, nor in any definition of gods (or a god if you prefer). A christian can usually take the stance that he is an atheist in regard to belief in Norse or egyptian or greek or roman gods, but an atheist also does not believe in christianity's god/gods (i.e. trinity).



Atheism says almost nohing at all about people as an individual. To know that, you'd have to ask each atheist personally, and you will get as many differnt answers as there are atheists.

Answer 9

Atheism, to me is, the belief that that the universe was not created by some other entity and neither is the universe or anything in it controlled or guided by some entity. Further, there is no world or life beyond the one we experience first hand (e.g. heaven, hell, purgatory, etc...).



Thats it. It doesn't have anything to do with what you or any one else believes. Believe whatever you want. If it makes your life better, fantastic. If it makes you a better person, great.



I think most atheists would agree that it isn't religion that bothers them, its the tendancy of those who practice a religion to influence (overtly, intentionally, or otherwise) the lives of those who believe something else.

Answer 10

Okay, give me a definition of "god" that you think is a reasonable alternative to a supernatural, personal, omnipotent, omniscient deity, and I can respond to that notion of god, if you prefer. I reject the idea that any being, of whatever nature, is responsible for creating the universe, on the grounds that there is no evidence of such a being.

Answer 11

You may appreciate this article by John Shelby Spong >>



Human Definitions of God Need Revision

newsweek.washingtonpost.com



I welcome the attention that serious atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are offering the world at this moment through their books. They are bringing what I regard as a deserved criticism and a necessary correction to what Christianity has become in our generation.



I, for one, have no desire to worship a God who is thought to favor the war in the Middle East in order to accomplish some obscure prediction found in the late first century book of Revelation, who suppresses women in the name of ancient patriarchy, or who is so deeply homophobic that oppressing homosexuals becomes the defining issue of church life.



Such an irrational, superstitious deity has no appeal to me and the attack of atheists against this kind of God is welcome. I also do not want to be told that the "true God" can be found either in the inerrancy of the Bible or in the infallibility of a Pope. Both are absurd religious claims designed not to discover truth but to enforce religious authority and conformity.



I believe, therefore, that atheism as a challenge to organized religion has a worthy vocation to fulfill. The real atheists are saying that the God they have encountered inside the life of the church is too small and too compromised to be God for their lives. If the church is dedicated to such an unbelievable, magical and miracle-working deity that it cannot admit to any genuine probing of the divine, then the atheist speaks a powerful truth.



Atheism, technically, does not mean a denial of the existence of God. It means literally a denial of the theistic definition of God. That is to say, theism is not what God is; it is what human beings have decided that God is. Human definitions of God can die without God dying. Theism means that we perceive of God as "a being, supernatural in power, dwelling somewhere external to this world (usually conceived of as above the sky), who periodically invades this world in miraculous ways."This is the God who split the Red Sea to rescue the chosen people and who invaded the world in the person of Jesus to rescue the fallen creation. This is also the deity displaced by Galileo, made impotent by Isaac Newton, ridiculed by Freud and relativized by Einstein.



The theological question that needs to be explored in both church and state is this: Can God be understood in some way other than through these infantile and tribal images? Can Jesus be seen in some way other than as the divinely appointed sacrificial victim who paid the price owed to God for our sinfulness? Because I believe that both God and Jesus are so much more than these distorting images suggest, I am confident that a dialogue with those who call themselves "atheists" would not only be good for the church but it would also allow deep and profound truth to emerge.



Among the issues for discussion between atheists and believers would be: What leads human beings to seek to define God in the first place? Is it the human experience of transcendence? Otherness? Divinity? How then do we conceptualize that experience? If the worship of our God leads us to justify our killing religious prejudices that have throughout history created such things as the Inquisition, the Crusades, religious wars and even the current ecclesiastical attack on homosexual persons, can this God really be anything other than a creature of our own making? Will we remain deluded enough to call this creature God? Since that is what the theistic God has so regularly given us, would not the world be better off without such a deity?



The choice between the theism of the church and the atheism of those who reject the God of the church is to me a sterile and lifeless choice. Such a meeting between believers and atheists might lead us to examine what Paul Tillich called "the God beyond the gods of men and women." If believers cannot have that conversation because it compromises their God definition, then that is a tip-off that the God they serve is in fact an idol and atheism is always a proper response to idolatry.



John Shelby Spong -- Former Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Newark for 24 years before his retirement in 2000. He is the author of 'A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying & How a New Faith is Being Born'

http://www.amazon.com/New-Christianity-World-Traditional-Faith/dp/0060670843

Answer 12

I don't think all atheists are agreed that all religions are necessarily supernatural and necessarily wrong. I'm sure most atheists have at least heard of "secular humanism" which could be categorized as a non-supernatural religion with no readily seen harmful effects. Don't stereotype all atheists based on a few answers on Y!A.

Answer 13

As an atheist I take into consideration pantheism, polytheism, monotheism and the concept of a soul/spirits. I choose to not believe in any of these. ''Atheist'' is just a label...it doesn't define who I am... is it even supposed to?



I was a scientific pantheist for a day... I tried, couldn't do it.



Agnosticism is not a theological belief..it's a theological stance.

Answer 14

ok what is a god if you are not referring to a deity?

That is what a god is, it is some sort of higher intelligent power.



I dont believe in such a thing, thus I am an atheist.

atheism is limited to theism, its a lack of belief in it......



I dont know why you feel the need to use the word "agnostic" its useless as it just states the obvious.



Unless you are a crazy person we know you dont know if there is a god, you dont have to make it your official position.

Answer 15

Having been raised in this viewpoint (that deities are not real) is NOT about "opposing someone else's views."



According to what it seems you have said... Why does my view have to be a sole purpose of going against theirs? You sound like all the believers out there.



I don't believe in invisible, magic beings. Nuff said.

Answer 16

You misunderstood. I don't believe in any gods. We don't believe in any gods. Doesn't matter if it's Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Marduk, Apollo or who ever. I really don't think you aimed your questions directly at your hypothesis. So, your questions were loded dice.I limit nothing while you on the other hand do. Not to mention cheating on your experiment.

Answer 17

If you define "god" in a way that isn't supernatural, you really squeeze all the actual meaning out of it.



You are more talking about nature than god at that point.

Answer 18

Air

Answer 19

I can only speak to definitions I've heard. If I heard a definition that didn't involve something supernatural, I'd be willing to evaluate it.

Answer 20

Could you name a religion that does not involve belief in what is not proven?



Atheists are just people "without God". I don't understand what you're trying to say. We're not "against" things.

Answer 21

ERROR: WRONG



I think of the idea of deities in general when I hear "God" or "Gods" without an attached religion.

Answer 22

I don't mind religion and spirituality. It's when it affects the masses, my son, government, schools, and my neighborhood that I get upset about.

Answer 23

I don't believe in ANY form of a god no matter what name or definition is attached to it.



Oh, and in my eyes, religion is bad. It's destructive, stifling, suffocating, and total nonsense.

Answer 24

If you're saying we should be more clear about what we mean by the 'G' word, I agree completely.



Zvi the Fiddler

Answer 25

you're postulation is wrong, most, if not all atheists do not believe in the supernatural of any sort.



EDIT - you postulate an atheist only applies the lack of belief to ONE deity, when it applies to ALL.

Answer 26

Bring on your gods, and I won't believe in 'em.



CD

Answer 27

Different atheists have different opinions and personalities. Get over it.

Answer 28

I think they are just bored teenagers who think that being "rebel" is cool





and so the freedom of expression does not exist to these bored teenagers, for the thumbs down symbolizes that my words are true, and that they cannot indulge themselves with guilt any longer