Do atheists read the primary sources?

[marjoram_blues]

I agree it can be seen as either all or nothing. However, as has been discussed before - there is more of continuum.
I'm a tea-drinker - sorry, don't mix with coffee-drinkers; it's against my religion

I'd be interested to read the threads on it being a continuum if you can link them without too much trouble. I've missed them somehow.

As for being a coffee-drinker, I'm happy to apostatize if we ever happen upon one another in the "real world."

A very quick search:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11964&hilit=atheist

Might be something there, don't have time to go through it. There was a real 'heavy' period of atheist v theist discussions.
Skip, uwot - involved.

[ReliStuPhD]

A very quick search:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11964&hilit=atheist

Might be something there, don't have time to go through it. There was a real 'heavy' period of atheist v theist discussions.
Skip, uwot - involved.

Thanks. I'll look into it

[Melchior]

You have to understand the difference between 'casual' atheists and philosophical or militant atheists. Most atheists probably belong to the former category. These are people who may have had some casual religious upbringing by parents who were not particularly devout themselves, and they later dropped out of organized religion altogether, or perhaps took up vague New Age beliefs instead. They don't take traditional religion seriously and have probably not given it much thought. Philosophical atheists (in which I would place myself) have arrived at atheism as a result of philosophical instruction and reflection. Militant atheists are usually, but not always, Socialists who need a another axe to grind besides that of Socialism. I don't associate with them.

[ReliStuPhD]

You have to understand the difference between 'casual' atheists and philosophical or militant atheists. Most atheists probably belong to the former category. These are people who may have had some casual religious upbringing by parents who were not particularly devout themselves, and they later dropped out of organized religion altogether, or perhaps took up vague New Age beliefs instead. They don't take traditional religion seriously and have probably not given it much thought. Philosophical atheists (in which I would place myself) have arrived at atheism as a result of philosophical instruction and reflection. Militant atheists are usually, but not always, Socialists who need a another axe to grind besides that of Socialism. I don't associate with them.

That's a useful clarification. Thanks.

[Obvious Leo]

There is no entity "Atheist" in the sense that they have or require a system of belief. For most atheists I know, it is belief that is the problem. But Atheist is simply a place-marker for no being a Theist, which can be a range of incompatible beliefs.

Agreed. To label oneself an atheist conveys no information other than the fact that one is not a theist. If I call myself a non-dentist (which is a true statement), you know almost nothing more about me than you did previously. All you'll know is that you'll need to look elsewhere if you're in need of some root canal work. ( However I'm always willing to have a crack at it for a very competitive price.)

By the way, Hobbes, I agreed with your commentary about my Akhenaten story, which was mainly intended as a bit of a piss-take rather than a genuine historical statement. However it remains the case that in the entire anthropological record of our species it seems that true monotheism was only ever invented either once or twice. If it was twice then it occurred in two neighbouring cultures almost if not quite contemporaneously. I hate coincidences.

[Obvious Leo]

It's a pretty crappy piece of evidence I know but the word "Amen" has a history which predates the old testament, which was written many centuries after the exodus because at that time the Judeans had no written language. Amenhotep was named in honour of the big-shot god Amun.
I hate coincidences.

[Obvious Leo]

While I'm still roughly on topic I also agree that the Ankh could not have been the precursor of the Christian crucifixion symbol. That clever idea could only have been the handiwork of the well-known psychopath Saul of Tarsus. The original Christian symbol of the fish would have been too hippy a notion for the bloodthirsty Saul who had no interest in a faggy bullshit religion of peace and love. He was the bloke who replaced the original Christian message of redemption through forgiveness with one of redemption through suffering. He was a clever bugger, was Saul, but you wouldn't want him hanging round your kids.

[ReliStuPhD]

To label oneself an atheist conveys no information other than the fact that one is not a theist. If I call myself a non-dentist (which is a true statement), you know almost nothing more about me than you did previously. All you'll know is that you'll need to look elsewhere if you're in need of some root canal work. ( However I'm always willing to have a crack at it for a very competitive price.)

Unless I've misunderstood your point*...
If the definition of "atheist" carries any weight, the label certainly conveys " information other than the fact that one is not a theist." The proper usage is quite clearly to reference one who disbelieves in God/gods (though the term has unfortunately been saddled with lots of moral baggage). I know it's currently in vogue to claim that atheism just means "lack of belief in a the personal God of theists"--as if the atheist has made up his/her mind on the other stuff--but that strikes me as both intellectually and etymologically disingenuous. Unless we're just ignoring how "atheist" has been used since before Jesus (ἄθεος: without a god), it definitely conveys more information than simply not being a theist. Furthermore, non-theist "atheists" are ultimately debating not simply theists but other atheists who push back against this (mis)appropriation of the term.

*It just occurred to me that you may be speaking of those who use "atheist" in "folk" manner. That is, they might be open to positions such as deism or polytheism, but they just know for sure they don't believe in a personal God. As such, they use the term "atheist" in an imprecise way, where they would have been better off to refer to themselves as non-theist? Put differently, are you saying that some people misuse the term "atheist," and that it's a mistake to assume that all those who term themselves "atheists" are using the term in the proper sense of believing in no God/gods?

[Obvious Leo]

If the definition of "atheist" carries any weight, the label certainly conveys " information other than the fact that one is not a theist."

I can't agree with this or with any of the rest of your post if we're talking about the word "atheist" as it is applied in the common usage. The vast majority of people who would so define themselves would have scarcely ever given the matter any thought, any more than most theists have ever given the matter any thought. The simple fact is that some people are willing to go along with an implausible story because they couldn't give a shit one way or the other whilst other people are not willing to go along with an implausible story simply because it's an implausible story. However they couldn't give a shit one way or the other either. I would call both these groups apatheists because god is a stupefyingly boring subject. In fact I don't even know what the hell I'm doing in this thread. Get the fuck out of there, Leo, haven't you got something better to do with your time!!

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no entity "Atheist" in the sense that they have or require a system of belief. For most atheists I know, it is belief that is the problem. But Atheist is simply a place-marker for no being a Theist, which can be a range of incompatible beliefs.

Agreed. To label oneself an atheist conveys no information other than the fact that one is not a theist. If I call myself a non-dentist (which is a true statement), you know almost nothing more about me than you did previously. All you'll know is that you'll need to look elsewhere if you're in need of some root canal work. ( However I'm always willing to have a crack at it for a very competitive price.)

By the way, Hobbes, I agreed with your commentary about my Akhenaten story, which was mainly intended as a bit of a piss-take rather than a genuine historical statement. However it remains the case that in the entire anthropological record of our species it seems that true monotheism was only ever invented either once or twice. If it was twice then it occurred in two neighbouring cultures almost if not quite contemporaneously. I hate coincidences.

Indeed. I think it likely that the idea might well have survived to be 'born again' in the minds of the Jewish authorities as a way to bind their community together against Babylon and Egyptian expansion as they were centrally places.
But I think you will agree that Jahovah and Akhanaten's sun god were qualitatively different.

Thanks for agreeing about "atheists". This one can be a bug-bear, of prejudice and accusation. I've been told that atheism is a religion. And further that I rely on Faith.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's a pretty crappy piece of evidence I know but the word "Amen" has a history which predates the old testament, which was written many centuries after the exodus because at that time the Judeans had no written language. Amenhotep was named in honour of the big-shot god Amun.
I hate coincidences.

If you accept the Exodus, which few serious archeologist or historian do.

Given the limited range of human sounds and the thousands of world which need unique combination, there are likely to be many co-oincidences.

Set is also the name of an Egyptian go. But it is also the most common combination of 3 letter in the English language and has more definitions than any other. It would be ridiculous that they were all connected.

Amen, the Hebrew for "that's it", is NOT connected to the name of any god, and its utterance at the end of each prayer were that acknowledge would have been a fatal heresy.

It would be like a Moslim saying "Jesus" at the end of each prayer = ridiculous.

[Hobbes' Choice]

To label oneself an atheist conveys no information other than the fact that one is not a theist. If I call myself a non-dentist (which is a true statement), you know almost nothing more about me than you did previously. All you'll know is that you'll need to look elsewhere if you're in need of some root canal work. ( However I'm always willing to have a crack at it for a very competitive price.)

Unless I've misunderstood your point*...
If the definition of "atheist" carries any weight, the label certainly conveys " information other than the fact that one is not a theist." The proper usage is quite clearly to reference one who disbelieves in God/gods (though the term has unfortunately been saddled with lots of moral baggage).?

I does not mean that at all. It is a word designed by Theists to indicate those that do not share their belief. In the past this usually included many other types of theist, as well as those that for ANY reason do not have a a belief in god or gods, such as heathen communities; and those that have actively rejected gods.
Literally the "A-" suffix implies not more than a negative. Thus not a disbelief, not a belief at all.
Any given atheist might have a range of other factors that led to that state of affairs, but as no single word can exhaust the complexities of a single human we should not assume any set of necessary beliefs, attitudes or modes of thought to append to "atheist" except that they do not have a belief in god or gods.

In the same way that you cannot assume belief in a particular god by means of the use of the phrase "Theist": it could as well apply to belief in Zeus , Aten or Thor. Nothing but an absence can be assumes by "atheist".

Dawkins and others might be trying to build an ideological edifice, but in my view must of what is going on is a ridiculous attempt to replace Religion with another. That does not make "Atheism" a religion. And as I disagree with any attempt to religicise science, or humanism does not mean that I deserve the term atheist.

The reason you don't like it, is that it makes "Atheism" difficult to caricature for your straw man arguments.
Well tuff, luck.
Theism has changed over the centuries too. Maybe God has changed too LOL?
It has had to accommodate a list of scientific discoveries that for some reason god was reluctant to reveal to the believer, where he was more generous with those outside the immediate control of the church.
The burden of proof remains with the various theists and their bewildering list of incoherent claims. And you have to do that without the benefit of your odd caricatures and criticisms of atheism. Because none of that is going to advance your claim. I pity you, because atheist don't have a set of beliefs to laugh at. That's your problem.

So what the hell are you peddling today?

[thedoc]

If the definition of "atheist" carries any weight, the label certainly conveys " information other than the fact that one is not a theist."

I can't agree with this or with any of the rest of your post if we're talking about the word "atheist" as it is applied in the common usage. The vast majority of people who would so define themselves would have scarcely ever given the matter any thought, any more than most theists have ever given the matter any thought. The simple fact is that some people are willing to go along with an implausible story because they couldn't give a shit one way or the other whilst other people are not willing to go along with an implausible story simply because it's an implausible story. However they couldn't give a shit one way or the other either. I would call both these groups apatheists because god is a stupefyingly boring subject. In fact I don't even know what the hell I'm doing in this thread. Get the fuck out of there, Leo, haven't you got something better to do with your time!!

I would agree with Leo here, it would depend on how much effort a person has put into being whatever they claim to be. Many people adopt a label by default, not because they have put any effort into what they believe about God. A few people put a lot of effort into the decision and then have strong opinions on it.

[Melchior]

If the definition of "atheist" carries any weight, the label certainly conveys " information other than the fact that one is not a theist."

I can't agree with this or with any of the rest of your post if we're talking about the word "atheist" as it is applied in the common usage. The vast majority of people who would so define themselves would have scarcely ever given the matter any thought, any more than most theists have ever given the matter any thought. The simple fact is that some people are willing to go along with an implausible story because they couldn't give a shit one way or the other whilst other people are not willing to go along with an implausible story simply because it's an implausible story. However they couldn't give a shit one way or the other either. I would call both these groups apatheists because god is a stupefyingly boring subject. In fact I don't even know what the hell I'm doing in this thread. Get the fuck out of there, Leo, haven't you got something better to do with your time!!

I would agree with Leo here, it would depend on how much effort a person has put into being whatever they claim to be. Many people adopt a label by default, not because they have put any effort into what they believe about God. A few people put a lot of effort into the decision and then have strong opinions on it.

Most people go to church because their parents make them, and later on they enjoy the social aspect. It makes them feel good to believe that being Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim) makes them 'good people'. There is a certain amount of peer pressure in many communities to 'go to church'.

[ReliStuPhD]

I can't agree with this or with any of the rest of your post if we're talking about the word "atheist" as it is applied in the common usage. The vast majority of people who would so define themselves would have scarcely ever given the matter any thought, any more than most theists have ever given the matter any thought.

In that case, what we're talking about is the fact that many people misuse the word, not that the word means something other than what it, well, means. You've got something of an uphill climb to get past etymology and usage by those who aren't confused ok the term. Atheist is a clear descriptor with a long history of use that is little-changed to this day. But I can certainly agree wth your assertion that many atheists don't understand the word well enough to know that it does not apply to them. I agree that apatheism is more descriptive.

Thanks for the response.