I was just thinking about the current rash of atheism-themed threads, back to something I once said . I was especially reminded by something Liberal said about believing Der Trihs believed in God, but hated him. While I don’t think he’s right, it did get me to wondering.
Like I said in that thread, even if God existed as usually portrayed by non-Deist theists, I’d still consider myself an atheist. I would be against such a God. But a lot of the recent definitions flying around have centred around the modern definitions of either nonbelief or belief in nonexistence, not the Classic “against the Gods” idea. So -my question for debate:
Can I acknowledge the possible existence of God and still call myself an atheist with any sincerity? Or should there be another term for what I would be? Has the meaning of atheist shifted past the point of reclaiming? (Lib, this should seem like familiar ground to you especially).
Note - I’m not acknowledging the possible existence of God here. So let’s leave that argument for all the other threads. I’d post this in IMHO as a poll, but it is religious, and I’d like more than just yes/no input.
Actually, I think that you’d be an enemy of God, not an atheist. Or perhaps “theocidal” would be the proper term.
I don’t see why not. After all, that’s how we treat all sorts of beliefs. For example, there’s a ( literally ) astronomically tiny chance that President Bush is really a disguised alien is a human-suit. I admit that it’s theoretically possible - it doesn’t violate any physical laws. That doesn’t mean that I believe it for one minute.
The problem is, the believers like to play word games. Say you think God is possible, and they’ll distort it out of recognition. They’ll pretend that saying that you think God is possible means that you “admit” that it’s just as likely as atheism.
If there is an intelligent creator of all things then that creator has made the issue of its existence or non existence irrelevant to any creature that has achieved the capacity to observe nature.
Even belief in something like an after life does not require a belief in a deity.
Are you suggesting that the prefix “a-” can mean “against” or “contrary to”, and not only “disbelief in”, and that therefore “atheist” can mean “one who believes in the existence of a God but who opposes him/her/it”? 'Cause I don’t think that’s right. “a-” means “not” or “without”. Against God would be better described by “antitheist” or “contratheist” or “countertheist”, or maybe “extheist” or “untheist”.
Well, that’s all up in the air right now, WhyNot. Lots of people use “amoral” (morally neutral) to mean “immoral” (morally bad). Even Judge Judy uses it that way. And so, it wouldn’t be outrageous for atheist to mean a theist who opposes God. That is, after all, exactly what the concept of Satan is all about as I undersand it.
True. Language does change, after all. When enough people are wrong, then they become right. It’s terribly Tao.
This is just the first time I’ve seen it suggested that “atheist” is drifting in such a way. I’ve always seen antitheist in that context . Some reviews and articles surrounding His Dark Materials, for instance, said things like, “the author is a self-proclaimed atheist, but his work moves into decidedly antitheist territory” (which I agree with, both linguistically and thematically).
I have been operating under the assumption that even the most ardent ‘atheists’ such as myself, are technically agnostic, simply because one cannot be absolutely certain, and entirely rule out the existence of a god. A sort of ‘agnosticism by default’. But I suppose that would make god believers also agnostic-by-default, as their very strong feelings of belief do not make it so, either. Making agnosticism a catch-all, therefore redundant, term. Bugger…
It didn’t just mean “without belief in gods” when ἄθεος was a legitimate charge that could get you killed (ask Socrates) -it carried much more of a connotation of willful resistance than simple disbelief - “impiety” is a good translation…
Firstly, I am very careful about using the word ‘believe’. Liberal should say “He observes” or “he thinks” “He has the opinion” “Der Trihs believed in God, but hated him”. Wondering is good. My opinion is that Der Trihs affirms the nonexistence of gods and hates all ignorant people( those that operate on certain levels outside his narrow definition of the real world). Now I base my opinion on only what I observe in his posts. For all I know he may ride pink unicorns when he is not sitting at his godless computer. Der Trihs seems to be a good person, regardless.
In Catch 22 Yossarian argues with his girlfriend about God. They’re both atheists, but Yossarian disbelieves in a God who is capricious, cruel, vindictive, and incompetent. His girlfriend disbelieves in a kind and loving god. Yossarian says, “You disbelieve in the God you believe in, and I’ll disbelieve in the God I believe in.”
It amused me in the novel, but I can’t see it being possible in real life. In the movies, sure, the atheist character hardly ever really an atheist, he’s just angry at God, and when I’m feeling hostile, if someone witnessing shows up at the door he’ll get the “I believe in God, but I think he’s an asshole” speech, but I don’t think it can sustain itself as a philosophy.
My problem with this may stem from my conviction that almost no theists actually believe in God either, they just pretend to because everyone else does. To the question “how do I know this?” I reply “If they believe in God, why do they behave the way they do?”.
I am sorry I can’t make sense of “ non-Deist theists”. I suspect, however, if god existed, your world view would change dramatically as the world view of all those around you would change. We like to think that we are islands unaffected by things around us but we aren’t. Would being against such a god give you purpose and meaning in life (at that time)? I think I would be pissed being a mortal and having this eternal being around but he may have powers to make my mortal life worth living, who knows.
Also I don’t think it is good mental hygiene to capitalize the word god.
Really? What about my post right above yours? I use a quote from Catch 22 and attribute it to Yossarian. I capitalized Yossarian’s name, but he’s every bit as imaginary as God is. It would feel silly to me to capitalize the one and not the other, and leaving out all capitals seems like an affectation. When you write the name of every fictional character do you use lower case?
Belief in existence and belief in nonexistence cannot be proven so it is childish to attempt to do was my point in my thread. While Der Trihs position is to be “against the Gods” because existence cannot be proven and by default nonexistence must be true and for him it is apparent that a belief makes no contribution to rational thought. The operative is the “for him”. The teaming masses are not like Der Trihs in the least bit. We must live among the teaming masses and maybe Der Trihs does not. For the teaming masses, which we depend on to a large extent for survival, their belief, irregardless of how irrational it may seem to some, makes a large contribution to their rational thought.
Its stretching the idea, but think about Akhenaton in Egypt. He tried to push one god as the the one true god over hundreds of others. Everyone at the time knew there were hundreds of gods, this must have seemed like a wierd idea. I think this might be closest you can get to an athiest who believes in god.
This made me think about something I read once. ‘We’re both athiests, I just believe in one less god than you do.’ A Christian or Muslim believes in god, but doesn’t believe in thousands of other gods. Isn’t that kind of the idea?
