Is Atheism demeaning?

[DanieltheDragon]

In another thread someone suggested that atheism was demeaning in totality. In other words it demeans not just women or men but everyone.


Question for debate is Atheism demeaning?

If so how and why?


Definitions. To avoid false equivocation I am debating under the assertion that atheism is not a religion.

Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

so we have universality on the word of gods or god

god

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think your point can still be made if we agree to these terms.

[myth-one.com]

In another thread someone suggested that atheism was demeaning in totality. In other words it demeans not just women or men but everyone.


Question for debate is Atheism demeaning?

If so how and why?


Definitions. To avoid false equivocation I am debating under the assertion that atheism is not a religion.

Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

so we have universality on the word of gods or god

god

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think your point can still be made if we agree to these terms.

I'm still somewhat confused about the exact definition of an atheist.

I always thought that all people who did not believe in God were atheists.

So that atheists were all nonbelievers. Simple, right?

But I knew nonbelievers who did not consider themselves atheists. Perhaps they simply did not know the definition.

Are all nonbelievers atheists? If so, why do we need multiple terms?

Of course, believers need multiple terms because there are multiple beliefs. So we have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

And if some nonbelievers are not atheists, then atheists, while not a religion, are some such organization, club, group, or association - I suppose.

==========================================================================

But regardless of the exact definition, I don't see it demeaning to anyone.

But if it was, why would it be more so to women?

[Suzy]

In another thread someone suggested that atheism was demeaning in totality. In other words it demeans not just women or men but everyone.


Question for debate is Atheism demeaning?

If so how and why?


Definitions. To avoid false equivocation I am debating under the assertion that atheism is not a religion.

Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

so we have universality on the word of gods or god

god

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think your point can still be made if we agree to these terms.

I'm still somewhat confused about the exact definition of an atheist.

I always thought that all people who did not believe in God were atheists.

For me the definition of an atheist is someone that does not believe in God[s] because they have found no evidence for God.
Sometimes its thought that us atheists claim to be able to prove God does not exist but that’s impossible.

[Christian apologists often accuse atheists of claiming to be able to prove God does not exist but you just try putting them right on that and its like hitting your head against a brick wall!]

[Divine Insight]

I always thought that all people who did not believe in God were atheists.

The problem here lies in how you define God. If you are a Christian then you are an Atheist with respect to all non-Christian concepts of God. Therefore all Christians are necessarily Atheists too.

A person who claims to be 100% Atheist simply believes in one less God than a Christian. But Christians are themselves definitely 99% Atheists.

In fact, I have consistently refused to refer to myself as an "Atheist" in general terms on these forums precisely because I do not reject all possible concepts of God and I actually intuitively "believe" at least in the plausibility that there may be some underlying spiritual or mystical essence to reality. Typically we refer to that concept as "God" even if we believe that we are a direct manifestation of this mystical being.

Therefore I am technically not an "Atheist". Because I intuitively "believe" in the plausibility of a potential God. By the way that is the definition of "Faith" given in the Bible. Faith is a Hope of things unseen. So technically one could say that I am a person of "faith". I do hope that there's something mystical and magical about life. I confess that I do indeed hope that this is reality. But I also confess to knowing that this hope could be futile. But that's the essences of faith.

Therefore I am not an "atheist" in general. However, I am a very Strong Atheist when it comes to Hebrew mythology (i.e. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). Just as many Christians are very Strong Atheists when it comes to Greek mythology. They are completely convinced that Zeus is not God.

~~~~~

Also many atheists who claim to be 100% atheists, simply don't "believe" in any Gods. But they don't necessarily rule out the possibility that there could be an underlying mystical, magical, or spiritual essence to reality. Some do, others don't.

~~~~~

I would actually prefer to be called an "Anti-thesist". Because I'm actually against dogmatic theologies. Especially theologies that want to nail God down, put him in a box called a Bible or Qur'an, or nail him to a pole where he can't escape from being used as a scapegoat for their personal bigotries and degradation of everyone who objects to their theology.

Yes, I am definitely an anti-theist.

No question about it.

But I wouldn't say that I'm an atheist in the general way the term is viewed on the street. Very few people acknowledge the term atheist to simply mean a-theist, or without a theism.

Actually I am without a theism. I don't embrace or support any specific dogmatic theology. I don't nail God down, nor nail him to a pole.

The closest I come to being a "theist" is to acknowledge that some Eastern Mystical views of "God" (Specifically Taoism, and some versions of Buddhism) seem to be potentially rationally plausible. I'm not sure if those philosophies actually qualify as a "Theology" anyway.

Therefore if we take the term "Atheism" to simply mean "Without a theism", and we dismiss Eastern Mystical Philosophies as not qualifying as "Theism". Then given those technicalities I suppose I could be said to be 100% Atheist.

But I think if I were to accept that label it would be misleading because many people believe that if you are 100% Atheist you are convinced that there is no possible mystical, magical, or spiritual essence to reality. Because after all, many people who call themselves "Atheists" do seem to argue that any believe in anything mystical, magical, or spiritual is downright stupid. That's because they are convinced that science has fundamentally ruled this out. But having been a scientist my entire life I can assure everyone that this is not the case.

Science has not ruled out that reality cannot be magical. That a bogus claim that is often being made or heavily implied by many secular atheists. I think even atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, have ultimately confessed that science cannot rule out these possibilities. They simply offer that from there perspective they are highly unlikely. But highly unlikely is not meaningful. After all, how "Highly Unlikely" is it that there should simply exist some strange material stuff that can explode to become a complex universe that evolves into sentient lifeforms? Even scientists have confessed that this too is "Highly Unlikely".

In fact, now, in light of the indirect evidence that our universe might potentially be part of a far greater "multiverse" that contains infinitely many universes, they see this as something to point to in an effort to explain why such a "Highly Unlikely" event such as our universe might have come to be.

Of course all of this is far from science. It's actually nothing more than scientific speculation based upon indirect evidence from existing theories that are themselves unconfirmed in the details.

In short, let's face it. Nobody knows that the hell's going on.

So should this justify running back to Hebrew mythology and worshiping Christianity or Islam as the correct God myths?

I don't think so. Those myths simply don't portray an intelligent God. Let's face it, they portray a God who behaves in the same ignorant, immoral, and immature ways that the cultures who invented these myths had behaved.

Why should the creator of this universe be as stupid, barbaric, and immoral as the people who made up those ancient myths? I think that's the question that Christians and Muslims should both be focusing on.

If there is a "God" why insult that God by suggesting that this ancient barbaric and immoral culture has him "nailed". (and yes, that was most definitely meant to be a pun)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to myth-one.com]

I'm still somewhat confused about the exact definition of an atheist.

I always thought that all people who did not believe in God were atheists.

So that atheists were all nonbelievers. Simple, right?

But I knew nonbelievers who did not consider themselves atheists. Perhaps they simply did not know the definition.

Are all nonbelievers atheists? If so, why do we need multiple terms?

Of course, believers need multiple terms because there are multiple beliefs. So we have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

And if some nonbelievers are not atheists, then atheists, while not a religion, are some such organization, club, group, or association - I suppose.

Admitting to being an atheist brings negative social connotations with it that many people do not wish to be associated with. And there is also the tired old definition of an atheist as someone who "Knows for a fact" that there is no God. Obviously the ability to know things to a perfect state of certainty is a super power none of us possesses. Unlike many terms however, the term atheist is self defining. "A," meaning to be without, and "theos," meaning theology. An atheist is without any religious theology at all. An atheist does not "know" there is no God by definition; instead an atheist does not subscribe to ANY belief in the supernatural, including gods or goddesses.

[Suzy]

I always thought that all people who did not believe in God were atheists.

In short, let's face it. Nobody knows that the hell's going on.
[/i])

that's it then, I am packing up my bags and moving out. [giggle]

[Divine Insight]

that's it then, I am packing up my bags and moving out. [giggle]

The Giggling Philosopher
by Divine Insight. Inspired by Suzy

I'm pack'in up my bags
Leav'in only filthy rags
Head'in on a journey past the stars

I'm fed up with all the nonsense
and with people's nasty offense
and with God-myths that insist I wear their scars

There's got to be a place
that's beyond the realm of space
where I can live with peace in harmony with joy

And when I find my dream
"Eureka!", I will scream
I'll finally know the truth and Real McCoy

[KenRU]

In another thread someone suggested that atheism was demeaning in totality. In other words it demeans not just women or men but everyone.


Question for debate is Atheism demeaning?

If so how and why?


Definitions. To avoid false equivocation I am debating under the assertion that atheism is not a religion.

Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

so we have universality on the word of gods or god

god

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think your point can still be made if we agree to these terms.

IMO. no, atheism isn't demeaning. I've been trying to figure out how it might be perceived to be such and the best that I can come up with is that by lacking a belief in a god or gods, we are demeaning a vast majority of the population, in essence saying that your beliefs aren't true. So, while it isn't a totality, its a vast majority.

Either that or we're denying ourselves the glory of god, so we are demeaning ourselves.

How a lack of belief in a supernatural entity is demeaning in totality is baffling. I'd love to hear a better argument.

-All the best,

[OnceConvinced]

Question for debate is Atheism demeaning?

If so how and why?

I don't see how it is. Atheist is simply a lack of belief in any Gods, nothing more. Apart from that we are all different people with different values and different belief systems.

It's like picking out one profession, say "computer programming" and saying computer programming is demeaning. Nonsense.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I'll probably get "moderated" for saying this -- but I don't care:

Damn great post, Divine Insight!!

Science has not ruled out that reality cannot be magical.

The grand scheme may be magical. It's probably somewhere in between science & magic.

But magical things can be found on our tiny insignificant half spec in the universe. Being present when my first child was born was magical.

My seven-year-old totally deaf granddaughter singing in the choir is magical. And I have science to thank for that. She has two Cocklear implants.

I could bore you with others, but they are probably magical only to me.

Although I cannot imagine even our planet being squeezed into the singularity (let alone the entire universe), I think we are probably on the right path.

In short, let's face it. Nobody knows what the hell's going on.

The scriptures reach pretty much the same conclusion as regards to mankind -- For now we see through a glass, darkly . . .