Is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:21 pm

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?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:40 pm

harvey1 wrote:There seems something odd that a group would exist solely as "anti" to a philosophical position.

Why?
Should religion be exempt from dissenting opinions? If it were merely a matter of private belief, then I wouldn't be concerned, but religion affects every aspect of the social and political world and so it affects me. Atheism (for me at least) is not so much a matter of being against as being without a belief in any god. So it exists on it's own merit, as an approach to life that is based on reason, and human knowledge of a natural world.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:45 pm

Lotan wrote:Atheism (for me at least) is not so much a matter of being against as being without a belief in any god. So it exists on it's own merit, as an approach to life that is based on reason, and human knowledge of a natural world.

Then call yourself, more appropriately, an agnostic. Why construe a new usage for a term when the current usage fits just fine?

DanMRaymond · Post by **DanMRaymond** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:54 pm

He didnt construe a new usage for the term. An atheist is simply someone without a belief in any god, which is what he said.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:57 pm

DanMRaymond wrote:He didnt construe a new usage for the term. An atheist is simply someone without a belief in any god, which is what he said.

So, an agnostic is someone who believes in God?? I guess, to be consistent, a theist is someone who thinks that a God does not exist?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:59 pm

harvey1 wrote:Then call yourself, more appropriately, an agnostic.

I don't consider the existence of a god (certainly not the Judaeo-Christian one) to be any more than the remotest possibility, nor do I live my life as though there 'might' be a god, so I'll continue to identify myself as an atheist, thank you very much.
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.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:13 pm

Lotan wrote:I don't consider the existence of a god (certainly not the Judaeo-Christian one) to be any more than the remotest possibility, nor do I live my life as though there 'might' be a god, so I'll continue to identify myself as an atheist, thank you very much.

So, then your definition of an atheist conflicts with that of an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who either doesn't think we have enough empirical/philosophical evidence to categorically give a thumbs up to there being a God. Or, they simply don't think such empirical/philosophical thumbs up evidence is even possible. On the other hand, they don't think the empirical/philosophical evidence is such that God can't exist (in a reasonable manner). Anyone and everyone admits any wild scenario can exist (e.g., existence of pixies), but with regard to agnosticism we are talking evidence and the reasonable conclusions one can draw from that evidence.

Therefore, an atheist must be someone who's negative position is stronger than the negative position taken by the agnostic. As I said, the agnostics negative stance on God is that there isn't enough empirical/philosophical evidence to say there is a God. It would make sense then, that an atheist is someone who believes there is such evidence to say God doesn't exist, and it is reasonable to believe it to be so.

If you state that your position is an atheist, then the 'remotest possibility' of God existing is based on evidence (i.e., as you see it). If so, then why even suggest that you were an agnostic but didn't know it?

Lotan wrote: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.

bdbthinker · Post by **bdbthinker** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:46 pm

Hello. I'm new here and wanted to jump into this conversation. I think we are getting definitions mixed up here.

Atheism: Theism = belief in god or gods. add the prefix a and you have without the belief in god or gods.

Agnosticism: The Gnostics were a group who claimed to know god. To be agnostic means to be without knowledge.

In short, atheism deals with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge. They are apples and oranges.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know god, therefore i don't believe in god.

Just wanted to state that

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:10 pm

bdbthinker wrote:Hello. I'm new here and wanted to jump into this conversation. I think we are getting definitions mixed up here. Atheism: Theism = belief in god or gods. add the prefix a and you have without the belief in god or gods. Agnosticism: The Gnostics were a group who claimed to know god. To be agnostic means to be without knowledge. In short, atheism deals with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge. They are apples and oranges. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know god, therefore i don't believe in god.
Just wanted to state that

Welcome! I hope you enjoy this watering hole, it seems every species of thought gathers here...

The problem with your view is that we know why and by whom the word agnosticism was coined. It was coined by Thomas Huxley, the famous defender of evolution who stood by Darwin's side. Here is a quote directly from him as to why he coined this term:

Thomas Huxley Coll. Ess. v. pp. 237-239) wrote:

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain ' gnosis '—had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

"This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there; most of my colleagues were "-ists" of one sort or another; and I, the man without a rag of a belief to coyer himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. 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. To my great satisfaction the term took."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hen ... gnosticism

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.

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.

bdbthinker · Post by **bdbthinker** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:28 pm

harvey1 wrote:
bdbthinker wrote:Hello. I'm new here and wanted to jump into this conversation. I think we are getting definitions mixed up here. Atheism: Theism = belief in god or gods. add the prefix a and you have without the belief in god or gods. Agnosticism: The Gnostics were a group who claimed to know god. To be agnostic means to be without knowledge. In short, atheism deals with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge. They are apples and oranges. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know god, therefore i don't believe in god.
Just wanted to state that
Welcome! I hope you enjoy this watering hole, it seems every species of thought gathers here...

Thanks you

The problem with your view is that we know why and by whom the word agnosticism was coined. It was coined by Thomas Huxley, the famous defender of evolution who stood by Darwin's side. Here is a quote directly from him as to why he coined this term:

Thomas Huxley Coll. Ess. v. pp. 237-239) wrote:

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain ' gnosis '—had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

"This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there; most of my colleagues were "-ists" of one sort or another; and I, the man without a rag of a belief to coyer himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. 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. To my great satisfaction the term took."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hen ... gnosticism

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:

"...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.

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.