Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What is an Atheist?? In the shortest possible answer....
-
13-12-2007 5:52pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Fallen Seraph wrote: »Well, strictly speaking it's just a disbelief in god. It's entirely possible to be both an atheist and religious in the traditional sense.
That really depends on what you call God
Strictly speaking theists believe in a personal God, like the Abrahamic one, a God that has plans for us, wants to be worshipped, will judge you when you die and all that.
That leaves Deists, who have some sort of belief in a God, but they're not theists - so does that make them atheists?I'd go so far as to say that the overwhelming majority of atheists have a beef, to a greater or lesser extent, with the Abrahamic religions. But having said beef is by no means a requirement to be an atheist.
A number of atheists would even go further and suggest that all religion is a blight. But, again, this is their opinion.
I watched The end of the world Cult on C4 last night, highly recommended, a one hour program that sums up organised religious beliefs neatly.
If you want to know why I think religion is a blight - watch that program.
If you think *your* religion is any way different to Michael's then you are both deluded and blinkered.0 -
That really depends on what you call God
Strictly speaking theists believe in a personal God, like the Abrahamic one, a God that has plans for us, wants to be worshipped, will judge you when you die and all that.
That leaves Deists, who have some sort of belief in a God, but they're not theists - so does that make them atheists?
I would have reckoned that deists came under the "theist" bracket. As I understood it theism isn't solely restricted to a personal god?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fallen Seraph wrote: »I would have reckoned that deists came under the "theist" bracket. As I understood it theism isn't solely restricted to a personal god?
All this could be seen as playing with words and definitions but here are the definitions from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistwikipedia wrote:* Theism — The belief that gods or deities exist and interact with the universe. [2]
* Atheism — A lack of belief that gods exist. [3]
* Deism — The belief that a god or gods exists, but does not interact with the universe. [4]
* Agnosticism — The belief that there is no way to know about gods or deities. [5]
By that definition (yea wikipedia I know) deists are not a sub-group of theists, but are a separate group - hence all deists are atheist (ie not theists) - depending on your definition of atheism if atheism means "not a theist" then deists are atheists, if atheism means a more broader rejection of all Gods then deists are probably not 0 -
All this could be seen as playing with words and definitions but here are the definitions from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theist
By that definition (yea wikipedia I know) deists are not a sub-group of theists, but are a separate group - hence all deists are atheist (ie not theists) - depending on your definition of atheism if atheism means "not a theist" then deists are atheists, if atheism means a more broader rejection of all Gods then deists are probably not
'Adeist' is pretty ugly, though. I think 'a-theism' is correct in that I'm pretty certain of being able to disprove any major deity that interacts with the universe, but less so of being able to disprove the deist conception, about which I am forced to be agnostic.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
'Adeist' is pretty ugly, though. I think 'a-theism' is correct in that I'm pretty certain of being able to disprove any major deity that interacts with the universe, but less so of being able to disprove the deist conception, about which I am forced to be agnostic.
cordially,
Scofflaw
cordially,
Scofflaw
I myself would like to be ignostic :-As God means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead.
A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God: a big powerful man in the sky responsible for certain matters.[8] This anthropomorphic divine conception has been rejected by Spinoza, as well as by Feuerbach in The Essence of Christianity (1841).
A theologian's concept is more complex and abstract, often involving such concepts as first cause, sustainer, and unmoved mover and claiming such attributes for God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. To the ignostic these abstractions, taken singly or in combination, cannot be said to be false; rather, they are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, or perhaps poetic. Hence, one cannot meaningfully expound on the existence or nonexistence of God.
The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.
However I find I lack the patience
atheistically (primarily due to lack of patience)
pH0 -
-
Advertisement