# Atheism in the old days **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 4, 2000, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-in-the-old-days/5994 "2000-01-04T04:28:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Beruang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@Beruang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beruang)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2000, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-in-the-old-days/5994/21 "2000-01-07T14:28:00Z")
RobRoy – A minor point: the word “agnostic” was coined in 1869 by Thomas Huxley to define his religious beliefs (which were under attack, since he was a leading proponent of Darwin). He believed in God, fully and truly, yet acknowledged that this faith was not based on any observable fact. He _believed,_ but he did not _know_. Thus, “agnostic,” from “a-”, without, and “gnostos”, to know. Over the years, it has shifted in meaning to indicate a skeptic, a doubter, a sort of “middle ground” between deism and atheism – quite contrary to its original meaning. Sources: Steven Jay Gould and Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2000, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-in-the-old-days/5994/22 "2000-01-08T16:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > A statement like this presupposes that there is a legitimate psychological or social need for religion. Ummm… No it doesn’t. For openers, I’ll be damned if I can figure out what “legitimate psychological … need” _means._ You might as well talk about a planet having “legitimate gravity” or a solution having a “legitimate boiling point”. People are what they are. At any rate, here are cults of atheism nowadays, just as there seem to be cults of everything else. (The chief rite of most of them seems to involve making sophomoric comments on the Internet.) * * * John W. Kennedy “Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.” – Charles Williams ---
**Author:** ![eggo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@eggo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eggo)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2000, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-in-the-old-days/5994/23 "2000-01-08T23:46:00Z")
i would realy call myself a proofist, i find it very hard to belive anything without proof. i have seen no proof of a god, but neither have i seen any disproof. though i lean more toward the “no god” side as this seems more likely, i mean where the hell is he (or she–it?) why would all the “miriacles” be confined to the first century a.d.? (btw-i think it is wrong for our dating system to be based on the birth of jesus, but why change it?-it works well enough) though i don’t realy NOT belive in god, i don’t belive in him (it) either. but when somone asks about my religion, i usualy just say atheist, to avoid having to explain myself. eggo ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2000, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-in-the-old-days/5994/24 "2000-01-10T22:29:00Z")
RobRoy, you’re right. I’ve heard Buddha was an atheist. from John Rush: > [@](#): > > Irishman, I agree with most of what you wrote. Rather than “a conscious rejection of gods”, I’d say something like, rejection of the presumption that there are any gods. I was trying to emphasize the dichotomy between those who make a conscious decision about belief in gods and those who do not believe because they have not been presented with the idea of god and have thus not considered the possibility. But I catch the distinction you are making - my phrasing implies there are gods and atheists refuse to believe in them anyway, rather than atheists are rejecting the concept of gods. One could also, of course, point out the non-cognitivists that say the notion of god is a non-sensical and devoid of meaning. > [@](#): > > While Unitarians are essentially deists, they’ll let anyone attend their services. I don’t think you can make a blatant statement like that. I think it really depends on the individuals, and each congregation is it’s own entity. But yes, they are pretty tolerant of any religious position. > [@](#): > > And while there are now a few self-proclaimed atheist churches, they’re such embarassments that I published a brochure called Real Atheists Don’t Attend Church. Ah, you’re _that_ John Rush. I don’t want to start a Great Debate here, so I’ll drop the church question, especially since I still haven’t completely come to terms with the notion. > [@](#): > > Austin’s Ethical Culturalist group is now called The Ethical Society of Austin, and they describe themselves as “a religious humanist organization”. (Sigh) I’d heard that, but didn’t remember the correct name. > [@](#): > > Also, the American Humanist Association received a religious tax exemption back in the 1960s, which prompted the fundamentalist charge that schools were teaching the religion of humanism. Why such groups don’t instead apply for a 501c3 educational exemption is beyond me. I’m not sure on that one. I think the Ethical Society of Austin had as part of it’s goal to bring up the issue of why churches get tax exemptions. from Beruang: > [@](#): > > A minor point: the word “agnostic” was coined in 1869 by Thomas Huxley to define his religious beliefs (which were under attack, since he was a leading proponent of Darwin). He believed in God, fully and truly, yet acknowledged that this faith was not based on any observable fact. He _believed,_ but he did not _know_. Thus, “agnostic,” from “a-”, without, and “gnostos”, to know. > > Over the years, it has shifted in meaning to indicate a skeptic, a doubter, a sort of “middle ground” between deism and atheism – quite contrary to its original meaning. This is true. As I said, the question of agnosticism is a different question than the belief in god. There are atheistic agnostics and theistic agnostics. Huxley would have been the later. from John W. Kennedy: > [@](#): > > quote: > A statement like this presupposes that there is a legitimate psychological or social need for religion. > > Ummm… No it doesn’t. For openers, I’ll be damned if I can figure out what “legitimate psychological … need” means. You might as well talk about a planet having “legitimate gravity” or a solution having a “legitimate boiling point”. People are what they are. A “legitimate psychological need” would be something along the lines of an inherited trait in the human psyche that requires the notion of god to fill it. It is a requirement that must be filled for humans to function, and humans will naturally find some notion of an afterlife or god even if developing independently of all other cultures. As opposed to a culturally derived need for god, that could go away. > [@](#): > > At any rate, here are cults of atheism nowadays, just as there seem to be cults of everything else. (The chief rite of most of them seems to involve making sophomoric comments on the Internet.) “Cult of atheism”… the mind boggles. I suppose using some of the later definitions in Webster that description could be sensical. And I hardly think sophomoric comments are reserved for atheists. The internet just provides an efficient way for atheists to become aware they are not alone, and a way to express their frustration with religionists in a safe and supportive environment. eggo, a common term used for that position is “empiricist”. Your position is also called soft or negative atheism, and sometimes agnosticism (though that’s technically not correct to the word’s origin). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-in-the-old-days/5994.md?page=1)