Comments on: Find the atheist

By: chutney

chutney — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:18:50 +0000

Isn’t it embarrassing to say that other peoples’ beliefs are embarrassing? Or at least rude? I think we’re back to atheists being condescending.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:30:14 +0000

Chutney: I have no problem with theists defining themselves however they like. If I may be permitted to editorialize for a second, I suspect that the problem is that, contrary to what you say, many, if not most, believers in America still believe in the anthropomorphic god (the one with feelings and such)http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=41678

That god is kind of embarrassing, and its embarassing when those believers are the face of religion. When atheists debunk belief in that kind of god, its a reminder that one is using words like “god” with supernatural baggage, and it raises uncomfortable questions .

Personally, I find theists who claim not to believe in the supernatural to be easier to argue against, not harder;-) However, that doesn’t make the supernatural move a strawman, because those embarassing supernatural believers are very much the face of religion.

By: chutney

chutney — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:46:46 +0000

I agree with you that it’s not necessary. But I like it anyway. :-)

Yeah, that verse from Proverbs is kinda rude, and I’ll bet that one verse has set off a whole bunch of atheists. I remember using that verse in arguments when I was a teenager. It’s no place to start a conversation, so I can’t blame atheists for grousing that.

By: ck

ck — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:39:23 +0000

I keep thinking that Welch’s definition, invoking desire, could also come off sounding like the definition given by the Old Testament:

“The fool says in his heart there is no god” which is about belief and desire at the same time. And I suppose it is also fundamentally rude.

For what it’s worth, my partner and I have this conversation sometimes. She would call things like ‘love’, ‘human relationships’, ‘the universe’, etc. “god” and I disagree. I believe in those things and their value, but am still an atheist, for all intents and purposes. She doesn’t see why I am uncomfortable with god language, if it’s put into that kind of context. And I don’t see why it’s necessary, if put into that context.

Don’t know if that helps the conversation or not….

By: Response to Hafidha: Atheism is all about Coke | Making Chutney

Response to Hafidha: Atheism is all about Coke | Making Chutney — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:33:41 +0000

[…] Comments hafidha sofia on Find the atheisthafidha sofia on Find the atheistchutney on Find the atheisthafidha sofia on Find the atheistchutney […]

By: hafidha sofia

hafidha sofia — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:58:26 +0000

Correction: My first sentence is way too confusing. Let me rephrase:

Chance, how can you consider your beliefs as described to not be theistic, when panentheism means “all-in-God” (according to Wikipedia).

By: hafidha sofia

hafidha sofia — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:51:30 +0000

I’m not sure how you don’t consider your description of your beliefs to not be theistic, Chance (when pantheism means “all-in-God” according to Wikipedia). Maybe I’m just not understanding properly at all, but to my ears it’s like hearing a person say, “I’m a vegetarian, but I eat cows” because they’ve somehow expanded the meaning of vegetables to include cows.

That’s what it sounds like to me. Please help me to understand!

The problem I have with trying to expand the meaning of words like “atheist” is that it just makes a discussion about theism and atheism that much harder. Shouldn’t we be striving to make words that actually describe what people believe? As opposed to words that describe so much that they eventually become meaningless?

By: chutney

chutney — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:06:18 +0000

I don’t consider myself a theist or an atheist. (Perhaps a religious naturalist with a bent for panentheism.) I don’t really have a dog in that fight anymore.

I guess there are two things I object to. One is smug atheism, which is how I see the McCarthy definition. Atheists aren’t smarter than the rest of us. If they compare theism to stupidity, they’re being rude and don’t deserve a hearing.

My other objection is that atheists only get to define atheism as much as theists get to define theism. Both go back dozens of centuries. The definitions have shifted over time, and they will shift more still. Someone considering themselves an atheist doesn’t earn them the right to define the term. Nor does it earn them the right to define (away) theism. These words belong to everyone. Atheists don’t get to define the terms to their own liking unless everyone else does too.

The way it often plays out (in online atheism anyway) is that an atheist will define theism as belief in the supernatural. That’s certainly true of some forms of theism. But not all. Maybe not even most.

Making the supernatural move is a straw man move. Folks can not believe in the supernatural and still be theists, but that’s harder to argue against. I just want atheists to admit that there’s more to it than werewolves and tooth fairies.

By: hafidha sofia

hafidha sofia — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:34:14 +0000

I am a little wary of attempts to fuzz the meaning of atheist. especially when its theists doing the fuzzing. some people just don’t believe in god or the supernatural at all – is this wrong? unacceptable?

By: chutney

chutney — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:31:16 +0000

McCarthy’s definition is fundamentally rude. No one but stupid people believe in werewolves. (Or at least that’s the point of McCarthy’s definition.)

A good definition of atheism won’t be condescending.