Questions for atheists

You call me wrong but in the end you don't really address what I'm saying. Instead, you just repeat that Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and that I'm wrong, using the same old rubbish that clealry ignores my point.

Lets start with the actual definition of Atheism. You claim the word literally means “Without belief in a god”. Well, no, it doesn't. A does mean Without, and Theos does mean god, but where is “beleif” in this? Atheism means “Without a god”, not “Without belief in a god”. In fact, when the Word was first coined in Greece 3500 Years ago, it didn't even refer to ones beliefs at all. An Atheist was simply someone who did not formally belong to a specific cult (Which itself doesn't have the Pejorative meaning it does today) nor has a Patron god. One was literally without a god. It didn't mean you didn't believe the gods existed, or “lacked belief in gods”, It only meant you didn't personally follow any given god, specifically. Many Ancient Greek Atheists actually still offered incense and sacrifices to various gods, they just never took one as a Patron.

Early Christians were also referred to as Atheists.

The term “Atheist” has never meant “Without belief in a god”,and when you break it down to its components, it simply lacks the “Belief” part you need it to have to make “Atheism means without belief in a god”. The Greek word translated “Belief” is Pistis, which is the same word Translated as “Faith” in other texts as well. The term, if it means “Without belief in a god” would be Apistitheist”, not “Atheist”.

So you are mistaken when you say “Atheism means “Without a belief in a god””, it doesn't, it means “Without a god”, not “Without a belief in a god”.

Which brings me to the modern English definition. Even today it doesn't really mean Lack of belief in a god. In Reality it means “Rejection of belief in a god” or “Belief that there are no gods”. This is how Standard Dictionaries define the term, and how the word was used by Atheists themselves until about 20 Years ago, when the “No beliefs” movement to started. You see, back then Atheists didn't attack the word “Faith”, they attacked the word “Belief”, and the argument went that all beliefs could and should be questioned. Many even said a belief is something you only think is True, not something you know is True, and ridiculed it. But when people began to apply the same standard to Atheism, by pointing out that it was also a belief, Atheism was redefined as a Lack Of belief in a god to avoid this criticism. In other words, it was just a polemic tool used to shelter Atheism from the same criticism it levelled at Theism. Before all this, Atheists like Bertrand Russell, The Huxley Family, and H. G. Wells all understood Atheism as specific rejection of Theism, not as a mere lack of belief in a god, and all of them said as much. All you have to do is read their works to see how they understood Atheism as a Philosophical Position, rather than as a lack of a position.

For that matter, even modern Atheists who insist that Atheism is a mere lack of belief in a god, like you do, undermine this claim by then Asserting as a fact that God doesn't exist. Don't take that personally or try to shift this to you by saying “I never did that”, a snot only would I suspect otherwise,but it doesn't matter if you personally have or haven't, enough “Lack of belief in a god” advocates have. Richard Dawkins has, so has Sam Harris, and so have a lot of Internet based Atheists. I'll explain how.

If you outright say that God does to exist, or that there are no gods, or that all gods are imaginary and created by Man, then you aren't expressing a mere lack of belief, you are asserting as a fact that gods do not exist. This is especially True if,like Dawkins in his Ultimate 747 Argument, or Dan Barker in his FANG Argument, you actually make an argument fo why God, or a gods, cannot exist or is not likely.

Think about it for a minuet. If you actively argue against something's existence, then you have to take the position that this Something doesn't exist. That something can be anything, from Dark Matter, to Alien Life, to God. Still,the position has to betaken that X does not exist. You can't “Merely lack belief” and make an assertive argument to demonstrate that X doesn't exist. To make an assertive statement, or a complete argument designed to convince others, that X doesn't exist, you have to take the position that X doesn't exist.


It is simply disingenuous to say that Atheism is a mere lack of belief in a god, only to say for a fact that God doesn't exist, or to make an Argument that God doesn't exist, yet this is exactly what a lot of Atheists these days do.


Defining Atheism as a Lack of belief in a god also has an Ontological problem. The Human Mind must classify all Ideas that come into it. It cannot stand a Vacuum and always fills this void. If you know what a god is supposed to be and someone has told you of gods, then your Mind has to process this information in order to fit it into everything else. You can decide that gods don't exist, or that they do, or tat there's only one god. You can decide that you don't know if they exist or not, but you cannot merely lack belief in them. You have to do something with them in your Mind to make them fit into how you understand the World. They are, after all, part of the Information you have been fed, and you now have no choice but to categorise them as Real or not Real. Lack of belief in gods is really only possible if you are ignorant of what a god is supposed t be and have never heard of them. Since people who define themselves as theists clearly know what a god is, it's pretty silly to see them as ignorant of what a god is supposed to be, and thus not really tenable to see them as merely lacking belief in a god.

I know what I've said will be rejected by you but, just telling me that I'm wrong on this won't really prove that I'm wrong, nor will saying I refuse to see the Truth. I realise that defining Atheism s a Lack Of belief in gods has become an important milestone in modern Atheism, but that doesn't mean its correct and doesn't mean people need to accept it. Or even all Atheists accept it. Even some Militant Internet Atheists like the people who run Evil Bible reject the idea of Atheism as a Lack of belief in a god. You even admitted this yourself when you said “ The only common factor for atheists is that they reject the claim of an existence of God.” Well, rejecting a claim for the existence of a god is not a mere lack of belief, its a refusal to believe, or a belief that the claim is wrong. You yourself don't even define Atheism as a Lack Of belief functionally, only when you need the “Formal” definition to prove people like me wrong. So, lets not play pretend that Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. A means without, Theos means god, but out them together you don't get “Without belief in a god”, and that's never been what the word Truly means, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But the fact that you will reject what I say out of hand and call me wrong, and insist that Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, and the fact that you whipped out the “Not collecting Stamps is a Hobby” line, prove another point for me. You claim that Atheists have nothing in common but a shared Lack of belief in a god, yet I hear the slogan “Not collecting stamps is a hobby” a lot. In fat, there are a lot of things I hear from modern Atheists that are repeated over and over and over again. I hear all sorts of slogans over and over again, and have read Article son what it means to be an Atheist and to live Free of Religion, from various writers who clearly agree on abroad ideal. This is because if you honestly traced the History of Thought behind Atheism, you'd realise that it's not really all about individuals questioning and then giving up Religion on their own, and coming to Atheism. Rather, modern Atheism is the product of Philosophical discussions held in the 18th and 19th Century. Atheism, like Theism, doesn't stand alone and requires other Ideas to give bit shape and meaning. It is the assemble of Materials that make a House, and the assemble of Ideas that make a perspective.

Contemporary Atheism, the kind of Atheism practised by most of the Western Worlds Atheists, is in Reality built up from the 19th Century Freethought movement, an its attempts at reviving the Philosophy of the Enlightenment, only modified with the Progressive Ideals of its day.

Of course, you say there are different Kinds of Atheists, which clearly proves me wrong. They can't all have a common Philosophical Core. Why, there are vegetarian atheists, humanist atheists, left wing or right wing atheists, strong or weak atheists, gnostic or agnostic atheists, nihilist atheists, existential atheists, civil rights atheists, whatever. There is no set of dogmatic beliefs that all atheists follow. This is what separates atheism from religion. There are not '10 commandments' for atheism. There is no proper way to 'follow' atheism. Every atheist can believe a completely different view from another politically, socially, morally, or otherwise. We have no rules concerning that.


Well, here's the thing, Theism can make the same claim. There are vegetarian Theists, humanist Theists, left wing or right wing Theists, strong or weak Theists, gnostic or agnostic Theists, nihilist Theists, existential Theists, civil rights Theists, whatever. There is no set of dogmatic beliefs that all Theists follow. Just like Atheism. Even The Ten Commandments aren't followed by all Theists.

But that's the real problem with your Paradigm, you use “Theism” and “Religion” as synonyms, and seem to equate them all with Christianity. But, not all Theists are Christian, and not all of them care about the Ten Commandments. Do Hindus follow The Ten Commandments? Do Wiccans? Are they Atheists I your Mind?

Again, Atheism is not the opposite of Religion, it's the opposite of Theism. Atheism is not a rejection of Religion, its the rejection of Theism.

Which also bring sup an interesting point. You say the difference between Atheism and Religion is that Atheists can be anything, whilst Religious People are bound to specific Ideas like the Ten Commandments, but is this True? Given that you can believe in a god and still be vegetarian, or Left Wing politically, or Right Wing politically, or an Existentialist, or a Nihilist, or anything else, one has to really question your stance. You basically frame this as a debate between Religion and Atheism, as if these two forces are opposites, and yet seem to think all Religious People agree on topics whilst Atheists don't. Is that really what we see?

Now,keep in Mind, I am not arguing that all Atheists are the same, completely, but neither are all “Religious people” the same. Heck, not even all Christians are the same. Did you know Barrack Obama is a Christian? So is George W. Bush, is predecessor. So is Tony Blaire and David Cameron, and I'd be willing to bet these four have some rather stark differences with each other. For that matter, Prince Charles is a Christian, and so is Sarah Palin. Do you think these people are all the same and have the same Political, social,moral, and economic views? After all, your idea is that unlike Religion, Atheists can be whatever. Religion has Dogma that forces all its adherents to believe the same things, right?

That's the kind of oversimplistic constructed narrative I see all too often within the contemporary Atheist Community, though, the idea that there's this big thing called “Religion”, and all Religious people blindly follow it and have no Freedom to disagree, unlike Atheists who are all Freethinkers and ever so Diverse. Well, that narrative is complete Garbage and Religious People aren't all alike and don't walk in blind conformity with each other.

If you can't understand that, then you really will just get mad and call me wrong on what I'm about to say to you.


Not only is it not True that all Religious People blindly follow Dogma and thus all agree, it's also not True that all Atheists are a diverse lot with no Dogma and Doctrines.


In fact, the entire story of how Religion makes people into blind puppet who all just repeat what Religion tells them and how unlike Religion, Atheism allows you to think for yourself and Atheists are Freehthinkers with a diverse range of opinions is itself a sot of Dogma. It's part of the overarching Theme of the superiority of Atheism, its links to Rationality and Science, and how it leads to Truth and Tolerance whereas Religion leads to Ignorance and Fear. The entire Narrative that's followed in contemporary Atheism that views the situation as a are seen as in direct conflict with each other and irreconcilable, with the requisite story of how in the end Reason will Prevail and Religion will die so Mankind will at last be Free to explore the Universe and live in Harmony is just a Dogmatic Mythology constructed to suit the Egotism of the modern Atheist Movement.

The whole “Salvation through Science, Damnation through Religion”mythos, or the idea of Science and Religion being in conflict, with Science as Truth and Religion as Ignorance, is remarkably prevalent in contemporary Atheist Thought and is often repeated as a basic way to understand the World, and reads as both a way to understand the modern World, and a Prophetic Vision of a Scientifically based Utopia that will emerge once Religion has die and Reason has prevailed.

Its so incredibly common a narrative that its simply absurd to say it doesn't exist and isn't shared by a significant portion of the Atheist Community in the Western World.



For that matter,the whole idea of Science VS Religion, or Faith beign beleif without evidence, or Religion itself beign made up nonsense, whereas Science is Truth, all of that helps form the basis of the way contemporary Atheism defines itself in today's World. It is in a conflict with Religion, in the hopes of Vanquishing Religion in the name of Reason.


Of course Religion can't just be wrong, its also Evil, and responsible for Wars, and Genocides,and Death, and wherever Religion holds sway you have intolerance and Hatred and murder and the suppression of Science and Freedom is destroyed. Are you going to tell me you never heard that one?


Even more moderate of the Contemporary Atheists who don't go to quiet the extremes still basically frame the discussion as “Science rather than Religion”.




All of this can be traced back to the 19th Century Freethought movement and the books that began the entire concept of Science VS Religion written by Draper and White.


Then there's the concept of a self existent Universe, the rejection of Dualism, Materialism, and the general notion that we could all just become on in a big Brotherhood of Man by embracing Liberal Western values (Liberal in the original sense here) are rather common in Atheism today.

For that matter, the idea that Man's existence should be dedicated to the complete Realisation of his Personality and Self Enrichment as well as he Enrichment of society at large is a recurrent theme in today's Atheism. This is also the product of the Humanism that spawned it.


All of those similarities are culturally derived, and come from various writers who built on each others ideas and gradually, over Time, built a sort of loose consensus, that helped define what”Secular Values” were ad what it meant to Truly be an Atheist.


This is pretty easy to verify too if you wan tot do the reading

Even today Atheists know that Atheism spread s by convincing others of its beliefs and values, not form “mere lack of belief” coming to individuals, hence why so many people are outspoken Atheistic Evangelists, like Dawkins or Harris. Modern Atheists have to promote their ideas and convince other to adopt their specific Dogmas an Doctrines, they just say tis not Dogma or Doctrine and they “have no beliefs in common', and see this supposed Freedom Of Thought as a selling point. But come on, too many Ties we see people embracing Atheism on the backs of its criticisms of Religion and then spewing the same rubbish both about how awful Religion is and the usual Reason and Science Gibberish. We know these ideas are shared in a per group, not arrived at individually, so why bother trig to deny this?



I'm sorry but, seeing Atheism as a mere lack of belief in a god, that develops on an individual level with no outside Influences is just silly.


Now, I'm not arguing that all Atheists are alike, but modern Atheist Thought did develop form a known and easily traceable set of ideas, making most moern Atheists far more alike than you want to admit to, and even the Atheists who don't follow modern Athism, like the few Adherents of Nietzsche, or Ayn Rand's Objectivists,still follow a premade Philosophy that explains the World in More than just if there's a god or not.

It's the total Philosophy, be it Humanism, or one of its various offspring, Neitchism, or Objctivism, all Atheistic, that I call Religions. It may be preferred by Atheists today to say they are Philosophies, not Religions, and the Peanut Gallery modern Atheists may even say its not that, its a mere lack of belief in a god, but we both know better.


So, here I am saying it again. Atheism is not a Religion, but neither is Theism. However, being an Atheist doesn't mean you have no Religion, and Atheism is not a rejection of Religion. This is because Religion is not another word for Theism. Atheistic Religions exist, and Religion itself is nothing more than Philosophy. Everyone adheres to some form of Philosophical Understanding of the World,and that is their Religion, and modern Atheists have a whole lot more in common with each other than they, or you,let on.