Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 5:08pm

This is something I have argued quite often on this site and had planned to blog about. Prefacing "atheist" with "agnostic" irks me and I think it is unnecessary to convey what you mean with everyone but pedants and certain fundamentalists. There are discussions at length on T|A over this in at least two spots where we had a long debate. Quantum tunneling couches on Mars even became involved at some point for an extended period of time.

It was good fun.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 14, 2010 at 5:10pm

Atheism describes one infinitesimal aspect of my beliefs; that is to say, my beliefs have no, and are not affected by any theistic elements. If I say 'I'm an atheist", people have a tendency to straw man me to death based on their notions of what an atheist is. If my atheism was central to the conversation at hand, then I would accept this and counter it openly and honestly...

... but my atheism rarely is important to conversations I have. My morality, for example, is not shaped by any theistic element, but neither does it rely on any lack thereof. When people know I'm an atheist, they're often suddenly under the impression that my morals would change if I accepted that their god(s) was real. Not the case. I simply have no intention of submitting or committing acts I deem immoral to placate anyone's gods, real or imagined. If someone wants to change my mind, even if that someone is God, they'll have to do it through reason... or some form of hypnotism perhaps. Lobotomy maybe? No, let's just stick with reason.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that's sort of what the secular humanists go after. The (non-)existence of god isn't all that important; what's important is determining a value system through applying human reason -- without relying on the supernatural. The word 'atheism' doesn't quite fit properly, even if it seems close or if it is strongly implied/ associated.

There are as many variations that can fall under the title 'atheist' as can fall under the title 'theist'. Most religious people I know don't refer to themselves as 'theists'. They identify under something more specific. For many atheists though, there isn't any term that seems fits their specific belief. Atheism falls up short either because it is far too generic, or because the term comes loaded with too much social baggage. It's not a cop out; it's searching for a sense of identity. I've never, in all my life, had difficulty identifying as an atheist. Easiest thing in the world where I grew up. That doesn't mean it's always felt like a meaningful term to apply to myself. Just because I'm an atheist and you are an atheist does not mean that you and I believe the same things.

Then again, maybe some people do just cop-out. That's their business, I guess.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 5:23pm

... but my atheism rarely is important to conversations I have.

That is an excellent point, too. It also reflects almost all conversations I have in real life. In fact, if I didn't live in the middle of the Bible Belt, surrounded by the pervasive influence of religion, I would find labeling myself an atheist as absurd as labeling myself an a-fairy-ist.

But, I live in a country where these labels of belief carry significance, and identifying myself as an atheist, at least when it is relevant, is important. After all, just because we aren't involved in the conversation, doesn't mean that enemies of reason aren't furthering their agendas.

For many atheists though, there isn't any term that seems fits their specific belief.

And that is the nature of the beast. The tie that binds is unbelief. While a greater proportion of atheists will be college educated or have post graduate degrees/PHD's when compared to the population as a whole, we are really all over the map as far as beliefs go.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Hargrave on March 14, 2010 at 5:34pm

the morality issue... i dont buy into it. but i am also wrong a lot.

morals are not religion. sometimes morals are influenced by religion... but since we dont have religion and we still have morals, we can obviously see that there is no real tie. morals come as a result of basic common sense and decency. you know it would suck if someone hit you, so therefore you know it would suck for that person if you hit them. that pattern repeats with theft and murder and lying.

when someone asks you what religion you are, or the topic of religion comes up, you cant answer (if you dont believe in a god) anything other than atheist. if you want to say atheist that practices secular humanism... go for it. but secular humanism is just a concept. it is not a religion. personally i feel like its just a fancy way of saying "im an atheist, and im not a dick."

if you need another word for your moral code.... then one of us needs to work on our moral code.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 14, 2010 at 6:40pm

If someone asks me what religion I am? I'm not a religion; I'm a human. Atheism isn't my religion, if for no other reason than atheism isn't a religion. If the question really boils down to what beliefs I espouse, it's not atheism. I don't believe in the supernatural, but I have no interest in proving that particular negative. Atheism describes an attribute of my belief system; it is not my belief system in itself. No one can rationally understand any part of my beliefs (beyond the lack of theism) from that single word. Secular humanism, on the other hand, makes reference to what it's proponents do believe, as opposed to what they don't believe.

In terms of morality, you are wrong. There isn't another way to put it. While religion is most certainly not intrinsic to morality on the whole, it is intrinsic to certain moral codes. If not for the divinity of Jesus-God and Christian mythology, much of the basis for Christian morality is eroded. I may not accept this as a sound basis for moral code, I may not accept the moral code itself as being good, but it is a moral code built upon, or at the very least justified by a theistic base.

Regardless, morality was just a single example. Atheism does not provide any meaningful description of any of my beliefs. Not on the nature of the universe, not morality, not on art...

To me, the word only has value as an antithetical term. The less cultural significance theism has, the less significance being an atheist has. Conversely, if I were surrounded by aggressive religious ideologues, I might be shouting 'atheism' at the top of my lungs, but the word would still describe only what I am not; not what I actually am. Not everyone feels the same way about the word, and I respect the way other people use it, but personally, I'm not likely to ever use it to mean more than 'without theism'.

"if you need another word for your moral code.... then one of us needs to work on our moral code."

Is this just rhetoric you thought sounded nice? It's a non sequitur. Even if it wasn't, I'm of the opinion that everyone needs to work on their moral code until the day they die. Well, maybe they can take the day they die off and just have a nice dinner with family and friends.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Hargrave on March 14, 2010 at 6:57pm

not rhetoric at all. i was hoping it was understood that i think all people should be making a constant effort to be better people and improve the population of the world. my argument there is that if anyone needs a label to show that they practice what should be in practice in each and everyones lives... then one of us is falling short. either i am not doing enough and you feel the need to point it out, or you dont feel your actions are sufficient and need a title so people will assume that you are.

youre right, atheist is not a religion. again correct, it does not tell someone what i do believe or stand for.... but again, i dont need a word to draw people away from the assumption that i am a bad person. i give that a swift kick in the arse just by being me. i dont need to tell people that i am a humanist just so they know i want the world to be better.

i feel strongly that in the statement of atheism we say not just that we dont believe in a deity, but that we are here to help further ourselves and protect one another because in the end... thats all we have. brotherly love. sure, one can be an atheist and not care about the person next to him... but the same goes for any ideology. those people are just bad eggs, no matter what they believe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 14, 2010 at 7:17pm

my argument there is that if anyone needs a label to show that they practice what should be in practice in each and everyones lives... then one of us is falling short.

There is no reason to assume that either of us is falling short though. There isn't a universal or correct approach that I'm aware of.

My moral code and your moral code may have similarities, but it's highly unlikely that they are the same. It's a matter of perspective and ideals. There's nothing wrong with applying labels to our beliefs or aspects of our belief systems if it facilitates communication. I don't need a label to practice what I believe, but sometimes I do need a label, metaphor, symbol, slogan... whatever to start the communication process with someone else. We can't mind meld or any other Star Trek nonsense (that is Star Trek, right?) to just instantaneously impart the whole. Secular Humanism conveys something to others that secular humanists feel the term atheism does not. It's a choice they make moving forward, not necessarily a cop-out. This is really all I'm saying.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Hargrave on March 14, 2010 at 7:49pm

i appreciate you taking the time to really discuss my question of why a person would need more than the one word, or why they would replace it.

i can understand all of the points that you and the others bring up as to why you arent happy with just the one term and what you feel it doesnt describe. i hope that you can feel the same in return about my arguments.

as for me, for now, im good with the one. i guess its in a way a reflection of the point i made using political parties... because when i am asked my party, i say indie. who knows, maybe i default to blanket terms so that i can institute change down the road.... doubt it, but thats a good start at guessing.

Bryan. Atheist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 7:09pm

If not for the divinity of Jesus-God and Christian mythology, much of the basis for Christian morality is eroded. I may not accept this as a sound basis for moral code, I may not accept the moral code itself as being good, but it is a moral code built upon, or at the very least justified by a theistic base.

Are you saying that a moral code was derived from divinity, did I read that wrong, or was it worded awkwardly? A theistic base? What do you mean by that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 14, 2010 at 7:57pm

Are you saying that a moral code was derived from divinity[?]

Is that not what adherents of Christian morality believe? God is divine. God gave us commandments. We must follow those commandments because God is divine. Divinity is the source of morality there -- the foundation upon which it is built.

For non-adherents, we'd flip that. People decided that murder was bad, they invented a divine entity and had it forbid murder. Either way, it's the same mechanism. It's unimportant if murder is wrong for intrinsic reasons; what's important is that God said it is wrong. If God changed his mind, the value of murder would change accordingly.

For this reason I would consider fundamentalists, provided they were consistent in practicing their faith, to be amoral in all respects save for one single moral tenet: obedience to God.

A theistic base? What do you mean by that?

The moral code, as practiced, requires God to remain true. If you remove God, the moral code falls apart. Things lose their reason for being wrong. It's the same thinking behind people who ask the question 'How can atheists be moral?' The first time I heard it, I was shocked, but to them, morality relied solely on the dictations of a higher being.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 8:16pm

Okay, I think I know what you are saying. I wasn't really venturing into their realm regarding moral code, i.e. not immersing myself. Their divine codes are from moral codes of the time, and there is plenty of evidence that it has changed and adapted in more modern times. That is why I was confused. Martin Luther would burn at the stake most Christians today. So, in essence, their moral code is not dictated by their religious roots or texts.

but to them, morality relied solely on the dictations of a higher being.

I don't buy that, either. You can say that, and they may believe that, but we both know that to be untrue. Perhaps your playing at devil's advocate is what is confusing me.

People tend to be, from a moral perspective, a product of their society rather than a product of ancient texts. Or else more of them would side with Fred Phelps.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 14, 2010 at 8:40pm

I am not talking about what they are actually doing in practice or the true root of their morality; I am simply talking about the theological basis of their moral code -- what is preached. It always refers back to God in the end, even if it requires interpretation, revisionism or outright ignorance to remain contemporary. The thing I'm after is that the adherents will not count the belief as moral until they are convinced that God is okay with it.

The mechanism remains the same; it is right because God said so. It isn't relevant how true, or consistent or historically accurate this claim actually is; only that deference to something theistic in nature is given in place of rational argument.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page