Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

[stuartj]

A little exchange at the PPOT got me thinking about the term "atheist". Has it outlived its usefulness? Is the term "atheist", Atheists, itself redundant?

Dictionary.com:-
a•the•ist
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -IST ]

—Synonyms ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, INFIDEL, SKEPTIC refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An ATHEIST is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An AGNOSTIC is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. INFIDEL means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A SKEPTIC doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Has the concept become irrelevant, even silly, as the definitions blur? People come up ideas like “agnostic atheism”, or try to redefine atheism to account for the idea that in order to conclusively say “there in no god”- the atheist must exhibit a degree of the faith he derides in the believer. Faith is the ability to believe that for which there is no material evidence, and a rational person cannot have faith, in this context.

So, as we know, the atheist and the believer have much in common- the difference is that the atheist believes in one less god than the believer does. But we don’t have a word for people who think dismiss Tarot Cards. We don’t have "A-astrologers". If we say theism is just one more superstition, surely we don’t need word “atheist”. In fact, the word itself allows theists to load the term with the kind of baggage they apply to their faith. “Zealous, passionate, fervid, radical, fundamental” all terms believers use to describe atheists, as if atheism was just another iteration of the very same superstitious nonsense they cling to.

Atheists don’t just think religion is silly- its just that religions constitute the biggest form of mass delusion. Atheists in my experience also put water divining, fortune telling, faith healing, psychic powers, witchcraft, telekinesis, Druidism, ect etc in the same category as religion.

The term atheists should adopt is “rational”. Its got to be hard to accuse someone of “zealous rationalism” with a straight face.

[Bill Douglas]

I'm an atheist, but I believe in lots of gods, for a start; Jesus's dad, then there's Allah, the list goes on.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

I'm an atheist, but I believe in lots of gods, for a start; Jesus's dad, then there's Allah, the list goes on.

How does that work? Definitionaly, I mean, given: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

[Bill Douglas]

Shouldn't you be working?

[legion]

Science be praised.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by stuartj

How does that work? Definitionaly, I mean, given: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

I know with myself, I don't disbelieve in Gods. I just don't consider them supreme.

More like equals, with me for instance.

I can't be the only one.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

Shouldn't you be working?

I have people.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by stuartj

I have people.

Invisible people?

[Jeff Higgins]

Relabeling "atheism" as "rationalism" undeservedly elevates atheism to a loftier perch than can be justified by any rational person. So much of atheism is irrational.

True atheism requires every bit the faith of any religion. Your garden variety atheist places his faith in others' words, same as your garden variety Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. None have witnessed or tested the basic tenets of their faith; not the atheist, not the believer.

The zealots on both sides are irrational. They both give free pass to the most questionable of "evidence" when it supports them, and ignore or attack the most convincing of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The truth lies somewhere in-between, but the "true believers" on opposing sides of the argument are too irrational to even look.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Relabeling "atheism" as "rationalism" undeservedly elevates atheism to a loftier perch than can be justified by any rational person. So much of atheism is irrational.

True atheism requires every bit the faith of any religion. Your garden variety atheist places his faith in others' words, same as your garden variety Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. None have witnessed or tested the basic tenets of their faith; not the atheist, not the believer.

The zealots on both sides are irrational. They both give free pass to the most questionable of "evidence" when it supports them, and ignore or attack the most convincing of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The truth lies somewhere in-between, but the "true believers" on opposing sides of the argument are too irrational to even look.

Yes, yes that sounds like me

Actually my parents sent me to a private Anglican school because they felt the education was better than the state school system. I guess I became an atheist because I played rugby on the weekends instead of going to church.

[nostatic]

I believe in Bill Douglas

Can I have my wine now?

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Relabeling "atheism" as "rationalism" undeservedly elevates atheism to a loftier perch than can be justified by any rational person. So much of atheism is irrational.

True atheism requires every bit the faith of any religion. Your garden variety atheist places his faith in others' words, same as your garden variety Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. None have witnessed or tested the basic tenets of their faith; not the atheist, not the believer.

The zealots on both sides are irrational. They both give free pass to the most questionable of "evidence" when it supports them, and ignore or attack the most convincing of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The truth lies somewhere in-between, but the "true believers" on opposing sides of the argument are too irrational to even look.

Well Jeff, I imagine you could say that each of us must come to our own conclusions, based on the evidence we accept or reject, each using our critical faculty.

Believers believe what they will, and many will do so even faced with compelling evidence to the contrary. This question is really about atheists. Atheism is one front one the battleline. Religous belief is just another superstition.

Couldnt it be said that the WAR is between the Rational and the Faith Based? Win that war, religion just withers and dies right alongside water divining.

[kstar]

I think a good, default starting point should be based on things observable, measurable and/or testable. You can call this "state" whatever you like and perhaps a word can be coined for this state. I think this is where folks who do not currently believe in supernatural entities stand.

Best,

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I believe in Bill Douglas

Can I have my wine now?

Only if its a Marlborough Sound Sav Plonk or a Wahiki Cab. Dont let him pass off any other sheep dip on you.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I believe in Bill Douglas

Can I have my wine now?

No.

You haven't eaten your bit of fish yet.

[nostatic]

geez, you're strict. Higgins gives me whiskey without making me eat my fish.

I might have to find someone else to believe in...

[dipso]

Originally Posted by stuartj

A little exchange at the PPOT got me thinking about the term "atheist". Has it outlived its usefulness? Is the term "atheist", Atheists, itself redundant?

I would have to disagree. In fact it is religion that has outlived it's usefulness.

Atheism is growing faster than religion.

It is just a sign if the times. The information age.

Knowledge is the enemy of religion and with the populace getting smarter with each generation, religion is destined to fade into the dustbin of history.

It should of always been there, we would be better off without it.

[dd74]

Meanwhile, Bush last night hinted at one of America's "issues" with China is that the country is not a religious one. In short, he believes religion needs introduction into China...legally.

[m21sniper]

Au contraire they seem to have plenty of religious nuts over in China too. How many bombs have the Muslims over there blown up this month?

[dd74]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Au contraire they seem to have plenty of religious nuts over in China too. How many bombs have the Muslims over there blown up this month?

Don't know about Muslims blowing up bombs. I do know just as the games commenced, they kicked out a couple (or more) Americans seeking to promote Christianity. Bush went to church in China on Sunday, but Chinese who wanted to accompany him there, were strongly "discouraged" in doing so. One person said he was told he might "disappear" if he went anywhere near the church Bush went to.