Introduction and Definitions
March 19, 2007
Introductions and Definitions
My name is Dave, and I am an Atheist.
I have a lot of discussions with Christians. Some are informative. I had to rethink my views on Christianity when confronted with the concept of Sacred Tradition. Until that time, my ideas regarding Christianity had been limited to the Protestant concepts popular in my region.
Most of the time though, usually with fundamentalists, the entire discussion revolves around misconceptions of my attitude (as an atheist) toward their beliefs.
I keep a small text file on my desktop with a handful of definitions to help . Most are adapted from “reputable” sources. Adapted, because many of these words have picked up numerous connotations in recent history, due to their usage in a predominantly Christian environment. Atheism, for instance, has been equated to Nihilism, Communism, and even Satanism. I went out of my way to refrain from *changing* the definition, and simply removed the connotations that detract from their true meaning. I share some of these definitions now:
Atheism: The non-belief or disbelief of any concept of divinity, god, or the supernatural.
Note the lack of any negative (or positive) connotations. I don’t worship Satan, or Trees, Dragons, the Dead, or even Orbital Teapots. Atheism is merely the lack of belief (or disbelief) in Theism.
Theism: Any belief system that includes at least one concept of divinity, god, or the supernatural.
Any problems with that? I don’t have much vested in this definition, and I’m generally happy to allow my adversary to narrow or change the definition, within reason. The only reason I include a definition of Theism is that without Theism, the concept of Atheism makes no sense. Why would a person go out of there way to say they do not believe in invisible pink unicorns? Does the A-Unicornist label make sense when nobody is claiming to be a unicornist?
What about those people who DO hate God? Or the ones who DO believe that Christianity is evil?
Maltheism: A subset of Theism that holds that divinity, god, or the supernatural is immoral or evil. Maltheists are NOT Atheists. A Maltheist would say “God is Evil” This statement makes any sense within the confines of Atheism, which disbelieves the concepts of God and Religion. To believe that God is evil, one would first have to believe that God exists. By definition, Atheists are incapable of saying “God is Evil”
Anti-Theism: A subset of Atheism that holds that Theism is immoral or evil. Anti-theists maintain that the belief in God, divinity, or the supernatural, is evil. The distinction is important: Maltheists believe God is Evil. Anti-theists believe that the Belief in God is Evil.
Now we come to the definitions that drive my biggest pet peeve:
Agnosticism: Lacking spiritual or intellectual knowledge.
Gnosticism: Possessing spiritual or intellectual knowledge.
(Of course, with those definitions, I had to explain several more:)
Spiritual: Of or relating to divinity, god, or the supernatural.
Intellectual: Of or relating to rational thought.
Knowledge: The incorporation of valid logic and evidence with theory.
(Which required a couple more:)
Theory: An explanation that defines two or more facts in terms of eachother.
Logic: The process used to develop theories.
Agnostics are NOT an intermediate step between Atheism and Theism. Look again at the definitions of Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism, and Gnosticism. One set includes the term “Belief” the other set includes the term “Knowledge.” This is an important distinction: Belief does NOT equate to Knowledge, therefore A/Theism and A/Gnosticism are separate descriptions.
Also, the definition of Theory becomes important when arguing about evolution. Invariably, someone starts talking about the difference between Theory and Fact, and reality needs to be expressed to demonstrate their confusion.
Let’s go back to Atheism. Just like Theism can be used as a blanket to encompass a wide range of concepts regarding god (Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Hera, Ra, and Odun are all gods of Theistic religions) Atheism has several subsets. We mentioned one, Anti-theism, above, but we missed the most common types:
Weak Atheism: Non-belief in god as a result of the lack of positive evidence for god’s existence. One may subscribe to Weak Atheism on some issues, and Strong Atheism on others.
Strong Atheism: Disbelief in god as a result of positive evidence against god’s existence. One may subscribe to Strong Atheism on some issues and Weak Atheism on others.
Most Atheists (myself included) are Weak Atheists, sometimes called Atheist-Agnostics. We contend that there is no proof of God’s existence, neither is their proof of God’s non-existence. Without that proof, we cannot logically conclude anything regarding God’s existence. Due to the lack of knowledge, we identify as Agnostic. Due to our beliefs (or lack thereof) we identify as Atheist.
(Yes, I just said that Atheism is Illogical. (Who is going to quote that last sentence to try to make me look stupid?) Belief without Proof is also illogical, thus rendering not just Atheistic beliefs (or non-beliefs) but ALL beliefs as illogical. Christianity, Karma, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Orbital Teapots, and Garage Dragons are all illogical beliefs. )
Strong Atheists believe they have disproven the concept of god, therefore god cannot exist. Personally, I am a Strong Atheist with regards to any definition of god that includes omnipotence, as this trait is self-contradictory. (Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift?)
I’d say that’s enough for one day. I look forward to your comments and future posts.
Comments
16 Responses to “Introduction and Definitions”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
Hi Christian here, I dont want to get into a debate with you, I just wanted to say that if faith could be proven and we could have clear evidence that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected than it would no longer be faith, It would be fact.
No longer would we have to trust in what we can’t see and know in our hearts to be true.
God Bless Beth
Hi, Beth!
I agree with you (at least up to the point where you said “know in our hearts to be true.”).
If there was clear evidence to support Christian Dogma, we could logically pursue that course, and pehaps develop proofs and theories based on that evidence.
But, (Ok, perhaps I am itching for a debate
- My apologies) Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam) rests on a tautology, a circular argument, that goes something like “It says in the Bible that the Bible is true, so Christianity must be true”
In any other area of understanding, this logic would be summarily rejected. If a clerk at Wal-Mart was handed a pice of paper that said “This is a Twenty Dollar Bill”, under the logic often used to “prove” Christianity, that paper would be completely valid (and inflation would go through the roof).
Hi, Big D
Your Ol buddy AnswerMan here.
Good, lemme read this and go to sleep.
When I saw your name on top, i thought this was your sire. lol. now i figured it out.
looking for christians, as alway…. lol. keep up the good work. you got us backin ya up.
Gonna read now, tell you my reply, back in SU or If i still have this page in my history list.
Ruben
ps: you thumbed it up on SU, and i got here. =)
on secoond thought. wait till i get my hands on you.
AnswerMan
Atheist.
Hi, another Christian, not looking to get into a debate….just happened upon your site…..
Let me just pose a question from a believer to a non-believer? What if there really is a God and heaven and hell really exist? Seems to me that by being a believer I stand everything to gain (salvation) and nothing to lose. As an atheist, can you say the same…..
Stacie,
Good Question, and fodder for a couple future articles, thank you.
Short Answer: If you choose the wrong religion, your “Nothing to lose” suddenly becomes your immortal soul. (personally, I don’t believe in such a thing, but you get the picture)
Long Answer:
This question is an example of Pascal’s Wager. A little more formally, it is an example of False Dichotomy, a logical fallacy where the debator presents two positions, one clearly superior to the other, as though these two positions were the only positions possible.
Currently, it seems like the most popular argument to Pascal’s Wager is the cost perspective: Does it really cost you nothing to believe in God? Couldn’t you be doing something else on Sunday morning, like going fishing with your kids, relaxing at home, volunteering at a soup kitchen, inviting your friends over for the big game? How about all that time reading the Bible? Let’s step back from John Q. Everyman for a moment, and look at the clergy. If god doesn’t exist, then not only is this group of people wasting their lives, but they are also wasting the lives of their flock. How about monks and nuns? If there is no god, then their entire existence could very well be meaningless.
Personally, I feel the popular argument is fairly weak. After all, the reward, should god exist, is worth anything we could endure in this life, right? And, the punishment is infinitely worse than anything we endure, so Pascal’s wager seems like a good idea.
But, we get to the false dichotomy: Christianity isn’t the only monotheistic religion. There are dozens of different major, theistic religions, and thousands of sects within those groups, and all of them (well, all of them that I know about at least) are largely incompatible: If you attempt to follow any other choice, you’re going straight to some version of hell. What if Mormonism is the “Correct” interpretation? What if Islam is the right choice? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Hinduism? Wouldn’t it be pretty upsetting to live your entire life as a Christian, only to die and be greeted by Vishnu, or Zeus, or Ra?
So, what can I do? Well, I know that I am living ths life. I don’t know if there is an afterlife, nor do I know a surefire way to get into that afterlife if it does exist. I can run around, paranoid, and attempt to appease every different version of god that I can find; I can pick from the myriad of choices and devote and potentially waste my entire life to one of them; or I can live my life as if god does not exist. If god, heaven, and hell do exist, my only hope at that point is in the compassion and understanding of that god.
It’s Beth again,
Hi, there are other things to do on a Sunday but my faith is not limited to just Sunday’s. My belief in God has cost me more than just my Sunday’s, such as family and friends. I don’t need to justify my faith however, I know what I know.
They call Christians closed minded (and I’m not calling you closed minded, else we would not be having this conversation) but just try and speak what’s in your heart to someone who does not believe.
I find that some of the worst offenders are the so called liberals, anything according to them is ok, “If it feels good do it” sort of people, except being a Christian that is.
All I can say is if I’m not hurting anyone and I’m praying for mankind then it should be ok with everyone else.
If there is no God then why all the fuss, why take prayer out of school, why take so much action against God, and His people.
What is the world afraid of? We are not in the dark ages anymore so, no reason to fear the leaders of the “church”.
Anyone can say anything they like against God but watch out if you say anything for Him.
What I want to say in the end is remember John 3:16 it’s there for all.
God Bless,
Beth
Beth,
Frankly, I don’t understand how the group asking for a strict interpretation of the constitution can be called “Liberal” and the group making an active effort to rewrite history to change the context in which the constitution was written in order to introduce an entity that was deliberately ommitted - I don’t understand how THAT group can be called “Conservative”. But, I think that’s a topic for another day.
Back to your comment, you gave me a quick glimpse of hope, then you dashed it against the rocks.
“All I can say is if I’m not hurting anyone … then it should be ok with everyone else.”
If nobody but you is being affected by your actions, then nobody has the right to tell you to stop. I agree with this statement. I’d say completely, but you put that pesky bit about ‘prayer for mankind’ in there, and prayer, in my opinion, is one of the actions to which that statement applies, not a guideline for what people should do. But it wasn’t the mention of prayer to which I took offense.
In in the VERY next line, you question why people oppose prayer in school, why people take action against “God” and against “His People”.
If it’s not obvious to you why people oppose religion, then the “Close Minded” label is approriate. An Open Minded person would recognize that people have an inherent right to believe what they want to believe, free of government intrustion or compulsion. Just like it is more or less OK to believe any of the various sects of Christianity, it is equally OK (in the eyes of man and the law, at least) to disbelieve those accounts, to believe Krishna; the Flying Spaghetti Monster; nothing more than Humanity itself; or nothing at all.
You mentioned prayer in school: Nobody is trying to forbid kids from praying. The term “Prayer in School” was first adopted by Christians in an attempt to build a strawman. Christians wanted the public to believe that so-called liberals and atheists were attacking their right to prayer, when the issue was and still is government’s interference with the rights of the individual. I should not be compelled, or even encouraged by the government to adopt your religion or any religion. Would you have a problem if teachers provided daily Buddhist services in public schools? How about Wiccan? Jewish? Of course you would, you wouldn’t want your own children compelled to follow the teachings of Buddha, or praying to nature.. even if your kids were the ONLY Christians in a public school composed primarily of Buddhist and Wiccan students.
Moving on, you claimed we had nothing to fear from the “Leaders” of the “Church”. I would submit that the Army of God, a Christian paramilitary group which has bombed abortion clinics, gay bars, and the 1996 olympics, is a reason to fear certain church leaders. but you were probably referring to mainstream, concepts of the “church” I give you Ann Coulter, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” George Bush Sr: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” Pat Robertson:”We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, “We’ve had enough,” we are going to take over.”
I can go on for weeks, demonstrating that there are hundreds of powerful and influential people who advocate that the rights of a non-believer are unimportant; that non-Christians should be subjugated, their rights trampled, their patriotism questioned; that intolerance, violence, bigotry, and hate are all justified and appropriate (to some arbitrary level or another). ALL of this is based on their interpretations of how to respect the same God you claim to follow. Now, not all of them may be “Church” leaders per se, but, as I said, they are influential people, and they CLAIM to be Christian.
They obviously don’t follow your idealistic “If I’m not hurting anyone, it should be OK with everyone else” when they start regulating what can and can’t be done in the bedroom, or when I’m allowed to purchase major appliances, cars, or alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, it is impossible to have a rational, logical discussion on these issues with these leaders, because ultimately, they thump the Bible and declare divine right to try and interfere in my life.
You mentioned an issue about speaking, from the heart to atheists. Let me ask you something: Do you think it is any easier for an Atheist to find a willing ear from the “Faithful” than it is for you to find an Atheist willing to listen to your own opinions?
Any public speech is going to be criticized. “The moon is made of Green Cheese”, “Buddhists are going to Hell”, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”, or “There is no conclusive evidence supporting the existence of the God of Abraham, so belief him is an irrational act.” - None of these statements, in a public venue, is going to be free of criticism. If you don’t want your statements criticized, then you shouldn’t post them in public, you should only give them to like-minded individuals.
Beth, I respect you. You are willing to discuss the issue, and you appear to have a relatively open mind. It appears to me that there is room in your heart not just for God, but also to allow people to determine how to live their own lives. It seems to me that you might follow John 8:7 “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” You’re not judging me, you believe that God is going to do that.
Can you honestly say the same thing about all people who claim to be Christians?
What does it mean, if in your heart of hearts, you cannot answer “Yes” to that question?
Sorry I guess I don’t express myself completly right so this is my last comment, which I hope will express what I want to say:
Maya Angelou expresses, far better than I can, what is true for me.
Christians - By Maya Angelou
When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not shouting “I’m clean livin’.”
I’m whispering “I was lost,
Now I’m found and forgiven.”
When I say… “I am a Christian”
I don’t speak of this with pride.
I’m confessing that I stumble
and need Christ to be my guide.
When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not trying to be strong.
I’m professing that I’m weak
And need His strength to carry on.
When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not bragging of success.
I’m admitting I have failed
And need God to clean my mess.
When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
But, God believes I am worth it.
When I say… “I am a Christian”
I still feel the sting of pain.
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.
When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not holier than thou,
I’m just a simple sinner
Who received God’s good grace, somehow!
God Bless
Atheists: A response to Maya Angelou’s “Christians”
- RivalArrival
When I say “I am an Atheist”
I’m not shouting “I’m lost, help me”
I’m stating, clear as day
“Superstition places no hold on me”
When I say “I am an Atheist”
I speak not with pride, my friend
I may stumble, I may fall
But it is I who stands in the end.
When I say “I am an Atheist”
I’m not bragging of success.
I’ve failed as often as I’ve succeeded,
and I take responsibility for my mess.
When I say “I am an Atheist”
I’m not claiming to be perfect.
I freely admit my flaws
Reality demands it.
When I say “I am an Atheist”
I endure my heartache and pain
I learn from my mistakes
From repeating them, I try to refrain
When I say “I’m an Atheist”
I’m not better than you
I just want to live my life
And not be judged by you.
(Copyright 2007, Feel free to share with attribution to “RivalArrival”)
[...] simply not true of Atheism. Some of these attributes can describe anti-theism, maltheism, classical or LaVey satanism, [...]
[...] simply not true of Atheism. Some of these attributes can describe anti-theism, maltheism, classical or LaVey satanism, [...]
[...] to criticism and I allow others to try and change my point of view. One of those such things was an older post by RivalArrival, where he made me understand the true definitions of these labels -And that was the day I gave up [...]
Quoting from Penn Jillette (the taller, louder half of the magic and comedy act Penn and Teller). He is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and has lectured at Oxford and MIT. Penn has co-authored three best-selling books and is executive producer of the documentary film, “The Aristocrats.”
I believe that there is no God. I’m beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can’t prove a negative, so there’s no work to do. You can’t prove that there isn’t an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ”elephant” includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this ”This I Believe” thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by. So, I’m saying, ”This I believe: I believe there is no God.”
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I’m not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it’s everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I’m raising now is enough that I don’t need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there’s no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don’t travel in circles where people say, ”I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith.” That’s just a long-winded religious way to say, ‘’shut up,” or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, ”How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do.” So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that’s always fun. It means I’m learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I’ve seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn’t caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn’t bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
Nice summary, I particularly like the word “maltheism” (I hadn’t heard it before).
I’d personally disagree with your definition of “spirituality”, though. I don’t think it necessarily has to involved divinity or the supernatural. I like the definition “An inner sense of something greater than oneself” (from nature.com - that doesn’t have to involve God, but could be a spiritual view of the universe, science, or other natural things.
Richard,
Personally, I find your definition a little broad, a little enigmatic.
Considering your “place” in terms of science, society, technology, biology, nationality, physical location or any other “natural” system is straightforward and easily supportable. “Spiritual” doesn’t seem appropriate to describe a tangible, rational theory.
“Spiritual” is limited to some sort of metaphysical sense, a supernatural sense, as opposed to a “natural” or rational, quantifiable sense.
I’m comfortable with the term “irrational” to describe this sense… Irrationality is just as important as rationality - Irrationality gives us the ability to look outside the box, find solutions outside of our rational train of thought, and direct the rational side of our consciousness to address them. It is our imagination, our dreams. The purpose of our rational side is largely to make our fantasies become reality.
Understanding and acknowledging the difference between fantasy and reality is absolutely vital.