.png)
Atheism symbol
Last week in the first part of this series, I made the case for atheistic thinking as a natural part of the healthy human mind. I did not, however, draw any firm conclusions as to whether or not atheism as a worldview is a solution to many of society's ills, including and especially religious fanaticism. Indeed, the question remains, is atheism even a worldview?
An atheist agenda?
I have sifted through some 200-300 comments on my article both here and elsewhere, remarks running the gamut from glorious to grotesque, encouraging to insulting. Mostly, however, these comments have been thoughtful, rational and profound. The most evident concern from these remarks is the need for a clear definition of "atheism" in the first place. Part 1 of my series did not define atheism per se but, rather, hinted at a proper definition by using carefully chosen words and phrases, such as "unbelief/disbelief in a god," rather than "belief in no god" or "doesn't believe in God." The distinction appears slight, but it is at the heart of a fierce debate concerning atheism, which is whether or not it in itself is a belief system or "religion," as some have ironically claimed. In view of the seemingly monolithic and frequently fanatical "New Atheist" movement we see all over the place, it is easy to perceive atheism as a belief system or worldview, complete with dogma and doctrine.
Photo: Freethoughtpedia.com
This perceived atheistic agenda has too often been expressed as rabidly skeptical and obnoxiously derogatory towards everything beyond the three dimensions and five senses. It is precisely this rabidly skeptical and obnoxiously derogatory attitude that has created a great deal of resentment towards atheism and that has caused it to be viewed as a "religion" or "cult" in itself. While it is clear why devout theists would not want to be in the atheist camp, club, clique or gang—and all of these things atheism has unfortunately become—there are many millions globally who wish neither to believe in the fantastic fairytales and fabulous cultural artifacts of the organized religions nor to adhere to a rigidly materialistic and unspiritual perspective of reality, such as too frequently is exemplified by those who call themselves atheists.
In this regard, a clear definition of "atheism" needs to be put forth and reiterated in order to prevent the fervency that in actuality represents the other side of the same coin as religious fanaticism.
What is atheism?
In a nutshell, atheism is not a (dis)belief system, "religion" or worldview—or, at least, it should not be defined as such, as in certain dictionaries that call atheism a "doctrine." The word "atheism" comes from the Greek atheos, which means "without (a) god." In fact, in ancient Greece to be atheos could mean not only "atheist" but also "abandoned by the gods," with the presumption that such gods exist. In any event, "atheism" can be defined simply as a lack of belief in a god, whatever god, goddess, daemon or deity in question. For example, when it comes to the Pagan gods, all Christians are atheists, as they were deemed in ancient times as well, and so on as applies to other faiths.
Concerning atheism and its currently conceived definition, one of my readers, Ben Wilson, summed up the debate nicely:
Saying Atheism is the answer implies 'atheism' is some kind of consolidating alternative. This is dangerous because it plays into the hands of anti-atheists, and it makes the presumption that Atheism is some kind of anti/alternate-religious organisation....
Atheism is not any kind of answer, because atheism is not in any way some kind of organised establishment. If it were, it would be in its own rights a religion.
So I guess NO, atheism is not the answer. It is simply a conclusion."
While atheistic thinking rates as a vital part of the human psyche, atheism by itself can only go so far in solving the world's problems stemming from religious fanaticism, because it is in fact not a worldview. Along with atheism is needed additional understanding, but what would that be? Agnosticism? Humanism? Just secularism in general? Or do these "isms" carry with them the same difficulties?
For more, see Part 3 of "Is atheism the answer?"
Sources & Further Reading
Is atheism the answer? Part 1
Proper Definition & Meaning of "Atheist"
Comments
Another great article...thanks for taking the time to define "atheism" a bit more clearly before proceeding. I question the conclusion that atheism is not a worldview. I guess an apriori assumption here is that belief in god (or no belief in god) is a core belief, ie, it is foundational to the formation of other philosophies, values, and actions. If that is true, then if one does not believe in the existence of a god, that will of necessity create other philosophies, values and actions that will ultimately become a worldview. Belief in god forms a world view - no belief in god also forms or shapes a world view (for example, a materialistic/secular/scientific view of politics or creation of culture). I do think atheism offers an alternative core value to theism that can shape worldview.
My biggest confusion lies in agnosticism vs. atheism. I have heard it said that "you cannot prove something does not exist." What do you think? Where is agnosticism in all of this?
Without question, "gods" exist by way of definition alone, through the use of abstract and artificial religious language, since "gods" are not experienced empirically or possess attributes that can be defined through observational methodologies or hands-on experiment. "Atheism" is, for all purposes, really a disbelief in the particular religious language that a particular religious group refers to in order to define the character, characteristics, and attributes of their particular god. In the absence of such language, there are no attributes or characteristics of any "god" that are experiential in the 'real world'. "God," then, is only a word, and merely an interior mind construct that exists nowhere outside in nature. In silence "god" disappears and the debate between theists and atheists also disappears. The real world has nothing to do with language, and has existed billions of years without it. Reality is what remains when all words have been removed, and a simple enough test.
I don't think atheism to be the answer. But rather be scepticism, this literally meaning "observation". We need to really observe things and when we do that we will notice what the ancients did. I consider myself a pantheist, which considers all to be divine, be it good and evil; as this two forces are necessary in the dynamics of life. Our current problem is an imbalance of this two, caused by the negation of one of them instead of seeing them as inseparable (ying/yang). We have to recognize the divine in everything and most of all in ourselves. If God is a person is thru us, if it's a Goddess is thru our mothers and sisters. We need to rebalance our psyche, which keep us separating all that which is indissoluble. We have to take the trash out and recycle it for it to become the matter from where our new beginning will start.
I believe there is a spiritual dimension but to reach it you must rid yourself from religious dogma. Religion is our first very poor tryings to explain the world around us. Today we have more knowledge of our selves and our world and religion has become a burdon and it's time to get rid of it. Atheism is a very healthy stepstone in this evolution of spirituality, like in a debate when your standpoint is defeated you must step back and contemplate and evaluate. Thats the time right now. From there the possibilities is endless, good or bad. Let's chose the good ones :)
I, too, do not think atheism is a worldview. Personally, when we start out as babies with a 'blank slate', we do not have a worldview, per se. We are not even atheist at that point. I feel that atheism, for a lot of us, is getting back to that 'blank slate' after having been indoctrinated to some degree in one religion or another. I think Sam Harris said it best when he described atheism as the "destruction of bad ideas". Once you clear the slate then you do the research to find the worldview that best suits you.
From the biggest galaxies to the tinyest sub atomic particle, everything there is has been designed. It did not turn out that way out of some lucky but random sequence of events. The design of the whole shebang is intelligent. People who can't recognize intelligence when they see it should have their opinion count for what it is : «ignorance».
Garbage in, garbage out
Out of randomness, only comes randomness. The problem with the Gods of most known religion if their limited scope. Gods who can't answer for the whole universe need not apply for the job. And I think a God busy taking care of the whole universe couldn't care less if your burka is not just right, if you have not done your morning prayers right, or whatever other stupid ritual religious people came up with to control their believers.
To properly consider the matter of the existence of God, one cannot limit himself or herself to things that only hold true here on Earth.
When I ask if the design of the universe occured by chance or if it was designed by an intelligence, that question holds true whether you are an atom, a human being, a planet, a star or any galaxy of the universe.
In such a discussion, arguments tied to whatever happened on Earth can only be taken into account in the proportion that they still hold true in other parts of the universe.
It doesn't make sense to me that the few people living here on Earth would have the right to decide for the whole universe whether it was created by a God or whether it happened by accident.
Atheism is simply the result of applying the scientific method to the question of god's existence; there is no evidence so there is no reason to believe such a being exists. Most theists are willfully ignorant of what evidence is; one can easily see this by how they conduct their lives. They fly on planes, use computers, call each other on cell phones, take full advantage of medicine (based completely on evolutionary biology) while they sit, well fed might I add, in climate controlled homes.
Hey theists! Why don't you walk the talk already! The bible has plenty of advice for healing, growing crops, raising livestock, making clothes, etc. Yet you ignore every single bit of it and drink deeply at the fountain of knowledge you continually deprecate.
You theists are all talk; as to how you live your lives, you are INDISTIGUISHABLE from atheists. Your lives show how effective you believe science and it's findings are. What hypocrites you are; who would ever want to be like you?
We are all agnostic but it wouldn't be too bad if the Shamans were right.
As I and my wife are ex Christians we have no problem at all in labeling ourselves as Atheists. To chuck God out of our lives was the best thing we have ever done.
I agree completely with the statement that no 'ism' can ever be the answer, because I am extremely skeptical of answers anyway. The idea that there is some objective 'Truth' by which we should all live our lives is antithesis to our experience of the world in which each subjective state is in constant metamorphosis within itself, let alone the diversity of the 'world-at-large'. I think Atheism carries a far too negative connotation. Isn't it enough just to allow yourself the freedom to question and not have any conclusion or answers. It's not like we finally find out what it all means when we're lying on our death beds. We're still going to be lost for meaning.
God have failed.
So many religions
So many ways to believe in him.
The universal truth is not present.
All we have the word of God in the hands of men, collecting power in the name of God.
God can not blame us. Humans wants to believe and worship.
God has permited , us to believe whatever our priest from so many regions on earth, has commanded us .
God has failed.
Not us.
This is a great article and an even better discussion...note the absence (so far) of bible-punching anger? To say one is an atheist is not to be anti-christian, anti-islam etc., rather it is to be rational. So if we believe in rationalism, so be it.
Acharya, you are so profoundly intelligent and very particular about the words you use. No doubt you put much thought into what you say and I enjoy reading your articles very much. I wish you would respond to these thoughts, I'd like to know what you think of our existence.
What if we co-created ourselves? What if our subconscious minds are god? What if all of us are god? True god is a word, but for this purpose i'll use it. What if we thought ourselves here and to where we are. Then it would stand to reason that we could also think or uncreate the evil in the world that we have created because we think we need it to balance everything good.
Hi,
The Dog-Collared Clerics work for Mammon and not for God. In Mammon, you are paid as any other secular job where when you work for God, you do not accept mammon otherwise God won't pay you in Gospel Truth Treasures. These Dog-collared clerics are antichrist. Does any one knows this fact? Watch my Youtube Videos disclosing the hypocrite priests. Search under nijjhar1.
Acharya, you are so profoundly intelligent and very particular about the words you use. No doubt you put much thought into what you say and I enjoy reading your articles very much. I wish you would respond to these thoughts, I'd like to know what you think of our existence.
What if we co-created ourselves? What if our subconscious minds are god? What if all of us are god? True god is a word, but for this purpose i'll use it. What if we thought ourselves here and to where we are. Then it would stand to reason that we could also think or uncreate the evil in the world that we have created because we think we need it to balance everything good.
you are free to think as you like. I am too, I think there is a creator encompassing all things i could and would not believe there is a higher creator to all this.it woud be churlish of me to think that all this just happened.
I prefer the term agnostic, although I occasionally refer to myself as a Catholic Agnostic, or an atheistic agnostic.
Agnosticism implies doubt, ie. that we don't know, or that it is impossible to know whether there is a deity or not. There is little or no evidence of a deity, and even if there is one, why would it/she/he care what we think of it? I was raised mostly as a Catholic, so I can't get rid of that indoctrination, that's why I refer to myself as a Catholic Agnostic. I'm an atheistic agnostic, because I act as if there is no god. I don't pray, and I never feel any need to do so. When I find life a bit hard, the last thing I would think of would be to pray. Even when my father died, I felt no compunction to pray, or to believe in some kind of afterlife.
So, whether there is a god or not, I act as if there isn't, why makes me effectively an atheistic agnostic, ie., an agnostic with atheistic tendencies.
Is any position committed to 'really' understood or, necessary?
Thank you, but who put you in charge?
I'm going to just put it out there. There is a difference between the apathetic old atheists that the great Madalyn Murrey O'Hare referenced when she said "Organizing atheist is like herding cats". I saw someone who gave her life, and the lives of two of her family in the cause. Most of the people who called themselves "Freethinkers" then didn't mind a little philosophical meanderings about god, the life, the universe and well, everything. At worst, they seemed apathetic, and no two atheists were the same in a discussion.
Sorry, but I do see a change today. First there is organization, and some herding going on. Second, I'm hearing talking points as if their is a new apologetics to go with the drivel the abrahmics spew. Some people you can look at, who call themselves atheist, and you know that the first sour drinking or coke binge, and bam, they are shoving AA rhetoric down your throat they way they use to push atheism. Third, Acharya posted a "symbol". I love it!
"While atheistic thinking rates as a vital part of the human psyche ..."
Why? Without theism there'd be no atheism. Theists are the status quo, and set the terms, even for atheists, as the word indicates. Secularim is what is needed - genuine separation of church/religion from the public arena. And writing the likes of "Gospel according to Acharya" doesn't help in this regard IMO
I and a friend of mine were talking about parody religions, and to my amazement we both considered the notion that ancient religions may have formed in a similar way: as a sort of joke. She is quite the mythicists herself.
Ultimately, we should form our community bonds as a church, gang, secret society with hand signs, myths and rituals, because its cool to have like minded friends who will get your back when the Inquisitors come. Perhaps a church of Astrotheology would be appealing to some.
The thing is that no matter what word you use to describe any belief system, lack of belief system, or anything in between or beyond, it will be demonized by some and honored by others or somewhere in between! I say call it whatever you'd like and go with it! I understand you wanting it to appeal to people in the most clearest and purest of ways, but what can I say, words are words! Ism's drive me nuts, but then again, mere letters! I think the overall fear for people looking towards having an atheistic mind, is that there's some hidden agenda or belief that no one is telling them about... as is the case with Christianity, etc. Nature of the manipulation beast! Also, a lot of people equate Atheism with Satanism, as per my experience, so maybe a new term would be appropriate! The most important aspect of all of this is to get people questioning and opening the logic-centers of their brains and to prove to them that they won't burn in hades for doing it! I call it Love's Logic! :)
Acharya - I am a big fan of your thinking. Have read "Who was Jesus" and "Christ in Egypt". Also, have read books by Richard Dawkins and find them enlightening. Might I suggest another book for consideration - "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kauffman. The future is partially indeterminate as is Creation itself. Stuart has uncovered a science and reason friendly definition of "God" with whom we work to create the future.
"mr fed up," Why? Because without the freedom not to believe there exists no free will. Atheism probably existed long before somebody decided to claim there was a god. Similar to a child having no concept of god - that doesn't happen until devotees teach them.
You've probably never read "Gospel According to Acharya S" and have no idea what you're talking about - I have read it and consider it a fantastic read and quite helpful in regards to secularism and church/state separation. You're being disingenuous.
There is a danger, I believe, in referring to atheism as though it were a belief system. This is almost a default position for theists: "Well, if you don't believe in God, then you must believe in....." As Sam Harris says, atheism is a belief system with no content. I do no believe that atheism has the coalescing power that religion exerts over groups of people. I think that rather than referring to atheism, it is more suitable to consider reason and sound thinking as a basis for beliefs. Only in this way can we guide ourselves out of the forest of mumbo jumbo that religion has created.
Atheists are simply those who face reality without any reference to a god-image but actively protest against theisms. Except for atheism,nontheism,pantheism and panentheism most other forms of theism attempts to build a god-image. No model,mental or material,of reality can represent reality accurately. Pan- and Panentheists do not build models since to do that one will have to recreate the entire cosmos, known and unknown. Some atheists do build models or at least take some scientific models as representative of reality even though it will always only represent some aspects of reality. Monotheists of the deus abscondicus variety will not like my next statement: All those who reject any image of reality as representative of reality itself are the only ones who actually obey the second commandment of Moses in practice, though almost never acknowledged or proclaimed, whilst most who proclaim to obey it do not. Add to that love of life and the living and you are in cahoots with Jesus.
Atheism is not in and of itself the answer. It is only the starting point for a better, fairer, less prejudiced, more peaceful world.
You can get rid of God and decide to put yourself in its place. Stalin did that: and he created a system that mirrored the Catholic church. The hero worship and personality cult of the supreme, unlaterable, unassailable leader; the witch hunts against those who showed dissent; the economic miracles of Lysenko.
The key thing is to get rid of worship, and faith in the first place; the freedom to express doubt, to ridicule unproven ideas, and to challenge authority, to have fair representation in society, and to base opinion and decisions on evidence, reason and logic. Our fight for freedom in that respect has been a 5 century long battle with religion.
Name me any society that has gone to ruin, based on the thinking of people like Thomas Paine or John Stuart Mill.... only then will you have a case for faith.
God, miracles and magic are just words we apply to things we don't understand. The way we live today would be considered magic and of the purest evil just a few hundred years ago. Anyone who spoke of such things would have been introduced to 'purification by pain' by the Christian priests.
Today we are engineering, in genetics to build a body 'in our own image' that can survive on Mars without space suits.
Does that make us Gods?
If we define atheism as disbelief in God or a God, then what do we call a belief in no God? I think atheism is a belief in no God and disbelief in a God is agnosticism.
Will Moore
Valley Springs, California
As far as atheism being a solution as pertaining to a worldview, well, for me, what reading your book "The Gospel..." did for me is to clean the slate in my mind and kind of go back to the beginning, as if I was just born and was fresh in thought! A deconstruction necessary for re-construction! It's as liberating as it is unsettling, though, to shed decades of primal belief system's! I think it's what we need as a society, so we can restructure ourselves in a way that makes sense to the individual and the individual alone! Like with anything though, there are many sides and equations! So YES, it would be a nice worldview for a change, a refreshing hat to try on! We've tried everything else! Only problem is, COMFORT! People are too comfortable and weak, to stray from what they've been TOLD is right, wrong, the truth, etc. I believe in a creative force, yet that doesn't mean I agree with creation,or it's logic. Just as I believe in my Mother but I don't agree with her & her logic! Point!
Acharya,
I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church mow Atheist. I am a paid up member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and an ordained minister of the First Chuech of Atheism. At the moment I am reading your excellent book "Christ in Egypt" and loving it. After years of my own research I am convinced there is no "creator/god".
One thing annoys me on this page is the ad for "Cosmic Fingerprints" with Carl Sagan's pic. I hope you have lodged a strong objection to it appearing with your article.
em hotep
You are totally confused. If atheism is not a truth and not a belief, then it is not a conclusion. If it is a conclusion it is a belief, since it is not proven true there is no god.
a = not is etymology or the study of the root of a word. This is not how words are defined or ambiguity would not exist in natural language and it does. Words like relative would have only one meaning, because they'd have just 1 root. However, relative means something new in physics than it does it logic than it does in ethics than it does in geneology.
This article is total fail, it contradicts itself and shows your confusion. I take back my comment to the first installment, which was complimentary. Obviously you have no idea what atheism is.
Oh, I get it, Greg. When she seemed to be saying that atheism WAS the answer, then you were complimentary. But now that she's saying it isn't, you launch a personal attack. Thanks for proving her point about "rabidly skeptical and obnoxiously derogatory" atheists. Nice job.
Keep up the great work, Acharya. I get what you're saying, and you aren't confused at all. Clear as day, in fact.
A lack of belief is not anything at all.
To disbelieve, is to believe a proposition is false.
Belief that the Beatles are better than the stones or that jam tastes better than peanut butter is not a religion.
All of logic rests on beliefs called axioms.
You confuse atheism with materialism, while clearly objects like theism cannot be tasted, touched, heard, seen or smelled. Nor can mathematics, logic, language, belief or truth. These are concepts not physical objects.
Lack always uses the logical operator not. To say atheism is not believing in god is not talking about atheism at all. It is a truth about what atheism is not, not a definition of what it is.
The errors in this article just go on and on. The part where you contradict yourself is in agreeing atheism is a conclusion, while wanting atheism to not be a belief. Well it certainly is not proven true. I am an atheist for the sole reason I can be one, I believe there is no god.
I believe that there is a force out there, or in here, or somewhere possibly in another dimension that we may not ever completely understand. The CERN partical accelerator is going to find many many things that will be helpful, but no one will ever find where and how it actually all started. The symbol for invinity is the number eight, and I believe there is an infinite amount of everthing we need and don't need out there. What's important is our choices, as it always has been.
Let's get back to basica "people." Just do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, basically, the golden rule, and move on. We need to get back to evolving!!!!!
How fricken hard is that?!
LOL, Acharya, guess you stepped on lil Greggie's religion! LMAO, Greg--give me a break. The only errors I see on this page are your comments, like supposing she said atheism's a conclusion. she's quoting somebody else. Doh!
Ooooh, it's SOO difficult to understand atheism, ya know, No God works in mysterious ways! You just can't figure it out, A. Fanatics are fanatics--they never can see straight, whether they're believers or disbelievers.
Only those brainwashed in their childhood can believe in a Big Daddy in Heaven. The 'gods' from the Old Testament were aliens, that's why info on Ufo's and Alien's in the USA has a higher secrecy classification than info on nuclear technology. Think of what will happen when the world finds out that the 'god' of Abraham and Moses was an alien astronaut who came here to mine gold. How would it be when we would find out he was a REPTOID (called ARCHON in old scriptures), where would our control systems go ? We are - creation is - part of a UNIFIED QUANTUM FIELD, things are this simple, so atheism indeed is the answer.
Ms.Murdock pls keep up the good work !
I'm confused. I am Atheist too. I'm Atheist to the Exoteric interpretation of the Bible.
Know once and for all. There has always been TWO Christianities and TWO Masonic Lodges running side by side since 325 AD.
Choose Wisely...
O--Dear Old Man--where Art Thou? Arms crossed, Signed and Sealed Forever...
"Let's get back to basica "people." Just do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, basically, the golden rule, and move on. We need to get back to evolving!!!!!"
The golden rule is not the answer. In fact, it's part of the problem. It has created a mindset whereby far too many people believe that if you do unto others, they will then be obliged to do unto you. It creates unrealistic expectations. It's like it has somehow become "God's promise". People think if they do unto others that God had promised that everything would turn out fine. When it doesn't, they get angry. The classic abusive mindset always says, "after all I've done for you...." Hell, Christians even use that one, "after all that God has done for you..." The classic golden rule needs to disappear from our thinking.
The modern golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules." And that one needs to disappear as well.
Delightful article as usual Ms. S. There is always a little something for everyone, a byproduct of free and rational thinking. I loved the little knowledg nugget that Athiesm, from an etymological standpoint could imply a disbelief in God or abandoned by God or the Gods. If you do believe in God it should make any argument with an athiest very short. Once they confess it just pick the meaning, in your head, that suits you and bid them good day. Great stuff.
Well, it's the answer to one question.
But it's just one facet in a wider struggle.
Some people are educated. Most aren't. Some understand what coincidence, correlation, and causation are. Most don't. Some make decions based upon evidence. Most don't. Some can admit when they aren wrong. Most can't. Some can apologise. Most cannot. Some people see shades of grey. Some only see black and white. Some think compromise is reasonable and the only way to include everyone. Some see compromise as weakness. Some will only give opinions on things they have thought about. Most will give opinions on things they know nothing about. Some people value speaking out and standing up, even if they are alone. The vast majority would rather "fit on" and "get along" with others, even if it means compromising their own values. A very small minority of people can actually create cohesive arguments. The vast majority cannot.
Atheists and moderate religionists are in the first group.
I can see,
I:Oh, I get it, Greg. When she seemed to be saying that atheism WAS the answer, then you were complimentary. But now that she's saying it isn't, you launch a personal attack. Thanks for proving her point about "rabidly skeptical and obnoxiously derogatory" atheists. Nice job.
G: There was no personal attack, I attacked her point of view and not her. I have no idea if she is even a she.
Atheism is necessarily the belief there is no god, and yours or her definition is out to lunch and violates formal logic in saying NOT X is a thing (atheism). Total fail.
Ressurect Isis,
R: If we define atheism as disbelief in God or a God, then what do we call a belief in no God?
G: They are the same thing and define atheism. The problem is with those who say atheism is a lack of belief, when a lack of belief is not anything at all.
It is true atheists do not believe in a god, but it is true about what atheists are not, not true about what atheists are. Defining something by what it isn't, is purely asinine.
The only hope, for America, is Jesus. The only hope, for our country, is him. If we repent, of our ways, stand firm and say we need GOD IN AMERICA AGAIN!
Good article, im atheist and found it very informing. I really find most theist disturbing when I talk about it with them, but ive learnt to respect them.
"Atheism is necessarily the belief there is no god, and yours or her definition is out to lunch and violates formal logic in saying NOT X is a thing (atheism). Total fail."
So, you think atheism's a belief system? Like religion or a cult? Her whole point is to show that's wrong - and she succeeds. The same's been pointed out by lots of people, including Sam Harris.
Your misunderstanding is the total fail.
I can see,
"So, you think atheism's a belief system? Like religion or a cult?"
G: Nope. I believe the Beatles are better than the stones, that peanut butter tastes better than jam and that the sun will rise tommorow and none of that is either a religion or a cult. All of logic rests on it's axioms, which are beliefs and logic is not a cult.
I: "Her whole point is to show that's wrong - and she succeeds."
G: She violates formal logic in saying anything is what it does not have or lacks, then she agrees atheism is a conclusion. It is not a conclusion if it is a lack of belief. She wants it both ways and is essentially all over the map with this article. Confused beyond repair.
Is atheism a conclusion or a lack of a conclusion? She seems torn to be sure.
By the way, atheism is a conclusion and one that says there is no god, itself a belief and not something we know. Like it or not.
Atheism is just a word.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!