Is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

[harvey1]

There seems something odd that a group would exist solely as "anti" to a philosophical position. It's easy to imagine why you would be "pro" a position since it is the position you wish to take. But, labelling yourself based on a position that you don't wish to take is like walking around saying that you do not wish to ever visit the Vatican. It might be something you would say in a conversation if someone asked you to go with them to the Vatican, but would you go to a website for people who wanted to take a group trip to the Vatican just to tell them that you don't want to go to the Vatican? Why would you do such a thing, unless you felt abuse by those who took frequent trips to the Vatican. Maybe, for example, you were watching cartoons one fine Saturday morning and somebody drove by running over your puppy and said "I'm sorry, would you like a free trip to the Vatican? I'll pay...". In that situation, I could understand why you would visit Vatican tour websites. You're still peeved about the guy who ran over your puppy.

So, does anyone think that atheism is a consequence of religious abuse, like the guy who ran over that kid's puppy?

[sin_is_fun]

actually its believers who created a group called atheists."Either you believe in god and trinity or you are an infidel and will land up in hell."
Atheism is not an extreme or even equal to theism.They dont say anything regards to god and will live their lives peacefully if only comments like "you will burn in hell" stops.If they are criticized for their beliefs they will retaliate.

Agnostics too actually qualify to be atheists.But actually you cannot label a person simply as atheist,theist or agnostic.Even jesus must have had doubts about his beliefs when he finally cried "eloh,eloh why did you disown me?".

Atheists preaching their belief is their fundamental right.Many atheists are aghast at the atrocities perpetuated in name of god and they believe that the world will be a better place without belief on god.They tell others what they feel.

There are fanatical atheists similiar to fanatical hindus or christians.There are normal atheists like normal christians.But there are lots of enlightened atheists who are willing to take the good aspects of religion like sermon on mount minus god.

They never branded themselves as atheists.Believers did so.

[harvey1]

So, Huxley specifically coined this term to separate himself from those who took positions on the subject of metaphysics, including atheists. It really does Huxley great disservice to take away the meaning of the term he created.

I don't think my definition takes away from Huxley's definition. In fact, I think it's in agreement with it:

The context of history is that Huxley would not identify himself with atheists. He choose the anti-gnosis term because it was against the whole idea of having knowledge which both theism and atheism claimed (especially at that time). If you want to say agnosticism is about knowledge, I have no problem, but so is theism, and so is atheism.

"...So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic.' It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.

So my definition of agnostic being that it deals with knowledge and not belief (which falls into the realm of atheism/theism) is the same. If you disagree with this please be more specific on where.

You have to look at the context and background as to why the word was coined. It wasn't coined so that all the atheists could immediately say "me too" and thereby destroy the meaning of the word.

Let me ask this question. Why do you think it is important that atheists should be able to call themselves agnostic, but agnostics cannot call themselves atheists? For example, if I can call myself an agnostic theist since I believe real knowledge is not possible, but does it serve any purpose but to eliminate the real meaning of the term agnostic? I think agnostics should have the right to their own designation, but this is their fight. I just don't like the trend of destroying perfectly good words when there is absolutely no reason to do so. All it does is encourage the disuse of the term 'agnostic' for some other word that will eventually be coined. Total waste of Huxley's brilliant term.

Let's face it. Atheists in an effort to deflect the criticisms it shares with theism as a philosophy that claims knowledge about the world beyond science's grasp, are left with the alternative of trying to label atheism with the same meaning as agnosticism. Let's don't be too naive folks.

I disagree. And what things do you think atheism shares with theism? I don't claim to have knowledge of the world beyond what science offers. Atheism simply deals with belief. I am an atheist because I do not believe in a god.

Atheism shares with theism the belief that the existence of God can currently be considered reasonable or unreasonable based on the evidence that we have available. Agnosticism is a term which strikes in the middle - it claims we don't have enough information to make a decision either way, and that possibly we may never have such evidence.

In my view, from what you have told me, you are an agnostic. Now, maybe you have beliefs that you haven't shared, but if it is simply a lack of a belief in God, then you are agnostic. If you believe that God is very, very unlikely to exist, I would grant that you are an atheist. Here's my designation of these terms:

• Strong Theism (ST): "The universe is such that reason dictates that God must exist".
• Weak Theism (WT): "The observed universe has the appearance that God exists, but it is not impossible within reason that God does not exist."
• Weak Agnosticism (WAg): "The observed universe is such that God cannot reasonably be confirmed to exist or not exist at this current stage in our understanding."
• Strong Agnosticism (SAg): "The universe is such that reason dictates God cannot be known to exist or not exist."
• Weak Atheism (WAt): "The observed universe has the appearance that God does not exist, but it is not impossible within reason that God does exist."
• Strong Atheism (SAt): "The universe is such that reason dictates that God cannot exist"

This above list of definitions is much more consistent with how agnosticism has been spoken of in the past, and it provides a weak and strong version (e.g., as used in the anthropic principle).

[Arch]

I was simply pointing out the 'strawman' nature of your argument; you are questioning your own description of atheism. Your argument becomes meaningless unless we accept your definition of atheism as being 'anti' god, as opposed to 'without' god. It is a fine distinction, but an important one.

Well, I'm not going to start calling people atheists when they are agnostics, or call people theists when they are agnostics, etc. It is just too confusing. If someone is agnostic, they shouldn't call themselves theists or atheists.

I fell I must add my two cents here...lol

Lets first state that belief and Knowledge are different words.
Just as faith and evidence are different as well.

Saying that I submit this idea of the difference between a Atheist and a agnostic.

One you can't be against something you don't think or believe exist. That should be elementary. To be against GOD I must first believe or know he exists. As most atheists and agnostics are against religion.

Second an Atheist believes based upon the evidence shown to them that a GOD doesn't exist PERIOD.

A agnostic feels that there isn't enough evidence to say absolutely or to have knowledge of the fact that a GOD does exists or doesn't exist.

However, and this is where is gets a little tricky, a agnostic could BELIEVE there is a GOD, because belief doesn't need facts nor does it need to be knowledge based. A agnostic could also believe that there is no GOD.

All a agnostic is saying is that they can't prove it either way, so here is an agnostic statement
I BELIEVE there is a GOD, but I don't KNOW there is one. (theist agnostic)

I BELIEVE there is no GOD, but I do not KNOW that there isn't a GOD(atheistic agnostic)

Atheist statement
I KNOW there is no GOD, based upon evidence that exist

A religious theist Statement
There is a GOD and I know this emphatically even though there is no real evidence to back this assumption. I just know within there is<-- this is really belief by definition passed off as knowledge.

If I had to be labelled I would have to say I would be agnostic more toward the theist side.

I believe there is some intelligent force that started this whole mess, but I do not have empirical data to back that, so I must admit though I may believe it I don't know. I do know however if there is an intelligent being that started this project that that being doesn't fit the view or character that most religions portray it to be because those doctrine are illogical and contradictory and not to say full of holes. Verifiable holes not conceptual ones.

[harvey1]

However, and this is where is gets a little tricky, a agnostic could BELIEVE there is a GOD, because belief doesn't need facts nor does it need to be knowledge based. A agnostic could also believe that there is no GOD. All a agnostic is saying is that they can't prove it either way, so here is an agnostic statement

I BELIEVE there is a GOD, but I don't KNOW there is one. (theist agnostic)

I BELIEVE there is no GOD, but I do not KNOW that there isn't a GOD(atheistic agnostic)

You can construe agnosticism along those lines if you look at the Greek origin terms (a- not; gnosis- knowledge). However, if you construe it in terms of how the word was meant to be used, I think it is clear from context that Huxley meant it strictly as a transitional position between theism and atheism. I already showed a quote where Huxley was clear that he felt the other philosophies were taking positions on metaphysics, whereas his position was 'no position'. Can anyone show a Thomas Huxley quote where he implied it can be equally used by theists and atheists? I would like to see it.

The word he coined is similar to those who originally coined the term 'archaeology'. If you look at the Greek word 'arche' means 'beginning' or 'origin'. Archaeology is the study of origins. If a cosmologist or paleontologist said they are achaeologist, then technically that is true if you study the Greek, but actually it is false. They are not archaeologists unless they study the origin of civilizations and the relics of humanity. So, for that reason, I say that agnosticism should be applied only to those who hold no belief on the existence of God.

But, unfortunately people will use the word as they see any advantage in doing so, hence the word will probably fall out of usage one day since it will not be distinguishable from the atheist position, and then someone will feel a need to call themselves 'anti-theism' (against a theist belief?) or 'adelotheism' (uncertain about theist beliefs?). If so, I'm sure someone at some other time will find a way to wreck those words too.

[concerro]

Agnostic-I dont know/dont care/am not sure if there is a God or Gods.

Atheist-Due to the evidence that have been presented to me I dont have a belief in a God. This not only applies to the Christian God, but any God.

Theist-Anyone with a beleif in any God regardless of the religion.

I am like most Atheist/Agnostics, and dont care what you beleive as long as you respect my wishes and dont try to force your beliefs on me.
I will debate with someone, but if they are 100% convinced and their beleif makes/keeps them happy or satisfied it is fine with me.
I'm not going to pull you off to the side and give you some pamphlet and tell you that this is why you should beleive that God does not exist, and then treat you like a cancer if you insist that God exist
There are some atheist who are anti-religion. They hate religion and everything it stands for, but most of the time if someone says they are an atheist they are saying your God does not exist, and they know it. They beleive in God as much as the average adult beleives in Santa and the tooth fairy.

This guy is not the average atheist
Michael Newdow
"One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw 'In God We Trust' on my coins. I said, 'I don't trust in God,' what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you're not allowed to do that and so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it."

If the guy has that much free time he should use his time and money for things that matter. Saying or not saying God everymorning is not going to change my life. He could have taken that money and helped some poor kid get to college. At least he would have been making a difference.

[sin_is_fun]

This guy is not the average atheist
Michael Newdow
"One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw 'In God We Trust' on my coins. I said, 'I don't trust in God,' what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you're not allowed to do that and so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it."

If the guy has that much free time he should use his time and money for things that matter. Saying or not saying God everymorning is not going to change my life. He could have taken that money and helped some poor kid get to college. At least he would have been making a difference.

Michael newdow pursued a private hobby of his.When people like dennis ditto pay money to travel to space-just for fun--whats wrong with what michael newdow did?He pursued his private passion just like somebody will spend money and time to go on vacation to switzerland.People can spend money and time on things that make them happy.It might look useless to others, but not to the concerned persons.Asking why he dint spend that money on poor is like asking "why do you go on for vacation in switzerland?spend that money on poor".......

[otseng]

I'm confused. What is the purpose of this thread? Is it to debate the definition of atheism/agnosticism or is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

[aprilannies]

I'm confused. What is the purpose of this thread? Is it to debate the definition of atheism/agnosticism or is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

I was wondering the same thing.

[harvey1]

I'm confused. What is the purpose of this thread? Is it to debate the definition of atheism/agnosticism or is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

I was wondering the same thing.

Well, before you say that someone ran over their puppy, you should clarify if the puppy was owned by an agnostic or an atheist.

[concerro]

This guy is not the average atheist
Michael Newdow
"One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw 'In God We Trust' on my coins. I said, 'I don't trust in God,' what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you're not allowed to do that and so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it."

If the guy has that much free time he should use his time and money for things that matter. Saying or not saying God everymorning is not going to change my life. He could have taken that money and helped some poor kid get to college. At least he would have been making a difference.

Michael newdow pursued a private hobby of his.When people like dennis ditto pay money to travel to space-just for fun--whats wrong with what michael newdow did?He pursued his private passion just like somebody will spend money and time to go on vacation to switzerland.People can spend money and time on things that make them happy.It might look useless to others, but not to the concerned persons.Asking why he dint spend that money on poor is like asking "why do you go on for vacation in switzerland?spend that money on poor".......

I really dont care what he does with his money or his time. In the first thread it seemed like atheist were being accused of going out of their way to say they are anti-God, and most of us dont take it that seriously. I was using him as an example.
As I was writing I realised the amount of effort that would go into challenging the pledge of allegiance. The point is to this person God does not even exist. I understand that it is wrong because we are supposed to have a seperation of state and gov't, but there are more important things than saying God in school tor seeing it on money worry about. So now I will get back to the current sup-topic which is the definition of Atheist and Agnostic. Just waiting for a reply from Harvey