That is not accurate. It says that the term is derived from “atheos,” and then breaks “atheos” down to “a-theos.” In contrast, Contrapuntal claims that the word is derived from “a-theism,” which is not accurate. The first means (without god)-ism, whereas Contrapuntal’s versions mean “without theism.”
Contrapuntal’s cite says that it means “lack of belief in gods,” and therein lies its error. To its credit though, it does at least correctly parse the origin as being from atheos, and I was careless in failing to point this out. In any event, it is nevertheless incorrect in asserting that it means a mere lack of belief. That was not the origin of the term, and various encyclopedias of philosophy attest to its traditional meaning. Similarly, virtually every dictionary that I’ve consulted affirms that it means an active belief that there is no god. Not a single one states that it denotes a mere absence of belief.
Again, that’s not accurate. As I’ve explained on various occasions, the term is derived from (a-theos)-ism, not from a-(theism). This distinction is crucial.
It would be if we were to parse that as a+(theos+ism). That’s not the case, though. The Online Etymology Dictionary specifically says that it comes from atheos, to which ism was appended. In other words, it came from (a+theos)+ism, not a+(theos+ism).
I’m not, and I never even remotely implied such a thing. Nor did I say anything about whether atheism is a response to theism or not. Neither argument is relevant to the point in question, and you’re putting words in my mouth.
Believers can ( and do ) do just that. Since God is imaginary, God’s Will is just what you or your preacher decide it is; a believer need not fear being held accountable by God, because God being just a fictional creature conveniently agrees with the justice of whatever the believer ( or his preacher ) feels like doing. The same goes for the rest of a believer’s mythology; if a believer of a religion that preaches compassion wants to, say, torture someone he can just tell himself that it’s for the good of his victim’s soul that he is torturing his/her expendable body and therefore justified - in fact, outright noble and compassionate - to do so.
And Contrapunctual’s cite says that in early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos “god”) meant “without gods” or “lack of belief in gods”. The latter is the modern atheist position. His cite also says that it wasn’t until the 5th century BC that the term took on the meaning we now refer to as “hard” atheism.
That aside, I’m note sure it much matters where the term came from - it certainly doesn’t exclude mere disbelief now.
I wouldn’t say religion is *just *wish-fulfillment, but I don’t think there’s any doubt it’s one of its fringe benefits.
Whenever I hear someone say something along the lines, “The lord will punish you on judgment day” it always strikes me as a declaration of impotence and subsequent wishful thinking. “I can’t get you for what I perceive to be your shortcomings, but god will get you for me!”
I personally think everyone believes what makes them comfortable (unconsciously), atheists and theists alike. I happen to believe that atheists are just more comfortable with rationally based ideas and evidence–based conclusions, but then, that could be my own comfort talking. I value being rational.
BTW, it is of little consequence what the original definition of atheist is compared to the way people currently use it, especially when they use it to describe something about themselves. The meaning of words changes all the time.
Responding to the OP, while religion is developed from wish fulfillment, I don’t think that if you developed a new religion from wish fulfilment now it would end up looking like, say, christianity. This is because the much of the world is a lot nicer and more understood a place than it was when most religions originally developed.
It seems to be that religions largely formed in response to a wish for safety and control. Lightning is striking, holy crap, what do we do! The world is attacking us why why why why - aha! It’s not the mindless and unforgiving maw of mother nature biting indiscriminately, it’s a deliberate attack by some thinking force, who is striking for a reason. And if that is the case, then all we have to do is figure out what pleases the God, and if we do that we won’t be struck by lightning. (Hmm, what satisfies people? Eating meat and recieving precious gifts. Grab that virgin and let’s off to the volcano, everybody!)
Once you’ve got nature all figured out and are making all the proper sacrifices to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, you find yourself that nature’s not your only problem - there are a lot of people who are jerks, and a lot of people who are better off than you and aren’t generous about it. So, you wish for fairness and justice. The evil will be struck down - and okay, sure, they seem to be doing fine now, and seem to stay that way until they die, but eventually God’ll get them! My oppressors will be laid low! (And those jerks from that other tribe with their funny language - God’ll get them too, the dirty foreigners. Er, why? Because God likes us. We’re the Chosen people, see - we’re his serfs and under his protection. You can tell by the way we’re the ones throwing virgins into volcanos.)
Nowadays we’re not as fearful of the unknown thanks to Science!™, so the rituals to placate the god’s violent whims would be less prominent or completely absent. We’d still have Hell and Judgement though because we like the idea of we don’t like being punished. And we like the idea that while they won’t make the cut, we will - and then we’ll get a pony.
I don’t value being rational - I can’t help it. I’d love to drink the kool-aid and live in ignorance-is-bliss, gleefully confident that I’m loved by an all-powerful daddy who will protect me and work you over if you pick on me in the schoolyard. And I want a pony too. But I can’t buy the story, and never have.
“I think that notion that we are all in the bosom of Abraham or are in God’s embracing love is—look, it’s a tough life and if you can delude yourself into thinking that there’s all some warm and fuzzy meaning to it all, it’s enormously comforting. But I do think it’s just a story we tell ourselves.”
Religion doesn’t originate from wish fulfillment, it orginated from ascribing human motivations to non-human events. Humans are adept at social/political interactions, and that means being able to figure out why your friends and neighbors act the way they do. So the first sorts of religions were animistic, a class of error where a module for interpreting the motives of your fellow humans is incorrecting applied to inhuman entities.
And so every tree, every river, every animal, every patch of soil, was a thinking feeling being, who had to be lived with and treated the way you would treat your human neighbors. And this meant that these non-human entities weren’t always nice, in fact sometimes they acted like utter bastards. Just like people. So sometimes the gods and spirits were kind, sometimes they were petty, sometimes they were jealous, sometimes they were spiteful, sometimes they were generous, and so on. And so the random capriciousness of nature is interpreted as purposeful.
You might worship the sky-god, but you wouldn’t always expect him to be nice. You’d expect him to smite his enemies, and help his buddies. A powerful chief of your tribe might be kind, or maybe you’d piss him off and he’d make your life miserable, and a god or spirit was no different.
All this stuff about an omnipotent God who designed the Universe and will judge us in the afterlife is a relatively late invention. Ancient people didn’t invent Zeus because they wanted to live forever in heaven. Zeus hands out justice but he doesn’t hand out perfect justice. Maybe he helps out a few heroes, when he’s in the mood but he certainly isn’t always looking out for every peasant’s best interest. And there’s no master plan, just a bunch of powerful forces and entities who each have their own agenda. Or think of the fairly grim Norse pantheon and theology. That’s not an example of wish fulfillment, is it? Rather a recognition that the world is unfair and full of suffering, and not even the gods are immune.
And if I were arguing that the examples of martyrdom and missionary sacrifice conclusively demonstrated that theists do NOT seek God for the sake of comfort, your response would at least vaguely resemble my argument. I said no such thing, though. Quite the contrary, I openly admitted that some theists surely do believe in God because this provides them with comfort. I cited the examples in question to demonstrate that your conclusion does not logically follow from your argument.
“But those are extreme examples!” you protest. That is true. Extreme examples are helpful because they provide the most dramatic illustrations of an argument. Moreover, I did not rest my viewpoint on those extreme examples alone. Quite the contrary; I provided several more mundane examples of how religion can be tremendously inconvenient for its practitioners, being a source of discomfort rather than mere lighthearted ease.
I’ve pointed this out to you repeatedly now, and yet somehow it doesn’t appear to matter.
It’s abundantly obvious from the manner in which you’ve been arguing. I have repeatedly pointed out that religion often causes its practitioners tremendous sacrifice and DIScomfort, a matter that should be fairly self-evident. I have also repeatedly (REPEATEDLY!) emphasized that some theists surely are motivated by the desire for comfort. Obviously though, that’s not enough for you, which is why you continue to belabor irrelevant points and offer snotty responses such as “And houses CAN be flaming death traps. That’s hardly an argument for living in tents.”
My stance on this matter is fairly moderate, whereas the OP is decidedly extreme (i.e. religion is JUST wish fulfillment). Interestingly enough, you continue to harp o the extremity of my two initial examples, even though they were not the only pieces of evidence that I presented. In contrast, you demand no evidence whatsoever for the OP, despite its extreme phrasing and complete lack of nuance.
As I said, that’s what happens when people are deeply wedded to the preconception that these poor, weak and ignorant theists must surely be motivated by their desire for comfort. Let’s not consider any nuances in the nature of their beliefs, and let’s not consider the possibility that human motivations are typically more complex than that. And for pity’s sake, we certainly must not acknowledge the possibility that someone might embrace atheism in order to avoid the discomforts and inconveniences of religion! Such piddling details simply must not be allowed.
I dunno… but if you were an utterly evil, immoral person, wouldn’t the idea that “There’s NO punishment facing me after I die” sound like wish fulfillment, too?
I dunno…do you suppose people think of themselves as evil, immoral scumbags and wish that there’s no Hell for them to roast in, or more typically that they think of themselves as basically good and wish for a Heaven to reward their years of trying to do good? I’ve met very few people who self-assess as “Yeah, I’m your basic piece of shit.”
As others have pointed out, some religions do, but generally the successful religions ask their followers to follow rules, and sacrifice.
Why? I suspect the main reason is tribal. You follow the rules, you feel like a member of the tribe. Which is a very typical thing human thing, both to impose rules and to want to follow them.
And secondly the satisfaction we get from working on something that we’re enthusiastic about is immense. So even religions that don’t tell their followers that they must sacrifice or go through hardship find that people will go ahead and do that anyway.
There is a difference. Look at the pattern of how people frequently become / stop becoming religious.
Often people turn to religion or become “born again” at a low point in their lives e.g. poor, alcoholic or just spiritually unsatisfied. The religious message appeals to them. “Proofs” of god and things like that are often considered later.
For a religious person to become an atheist however it is usually because they start to doubt the existence of god. It’s not that a believer will think: “Well I do strongly believe in god, but if I didn’t I could live the carefree life of an atheist. Hmm…I think I’ll become an atheist”.
Well even if the meaning of the word has changed, that does happen with language. Especially when the original meaning is infrequently intended (I know plenty of atheists. I don’t know many that claim to know there is not a god).
It’s just the same as the meaning shift that has happened with Agnosticism.
Does the phrase “Get off my side” mean anything to you?
We know how beliefs form. The development of superstitious beliefs is well accounted for in psychology. It has been observed clearly in both humans and lab animals. It is NOT a case of simple wish fulfillment. It is a case of misapplying cognitive processes in much the way Lemur866 described. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the two positions, it’s just that one has decades of well-established scientific evidence demonstrating its accuracy and the other is a just-so story. It drives me nuts when I see my fellow atheists defending atheism with the same arguments theists use: “but it COULD be true!” or “but it makes sense to ME!” It doesn’t matter what makes sense as a possible explanation or what could be true. Not when you have science to tell you what actually IS true.
ETA: I was principally responding to begbert2, but what I said applies to MOST of the atheists in this thread!
Actually, I agree with begbert2’s description of how religion developed. (I don’t always keep up with who typed what.) I just don’t think “wish-fulfillment” really describes what’s going on there.
