from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

atheist - 1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]
Related: Atheistic (1630s).


http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1243-atheism-is-the-absence-of-belief

Atheism is the absence of belief

Reposted from: http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070605/OPINION01/706050342

OFTEN WHEN I hear atheism mentioned it's followed by the bewildered statement, "How can you be sure God doesn't exist?" I would like to attempt to clear up a few common misconceptions about atheism. Namely that atheism requires faith, that outspoken atheists are "fundamentalists," and that agnostics are weak or non-committal while self-professed atheists are arrogant.

Theism is an active belief in a god(s), so the lack of this belief is "a-theism." It requires no active belief, neither affirmative nor negative. It is simply the absence of a belief. In the same way Christians lack a belief in Zeus or Hindus lack a belief in Jehovah, the atheist simply lacks a god-belief in general. It is no active affirmation that a god(s) does not exist.

To quote Dr. Richard Dawkins, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." I would add that we reject belief in your god(s), whichever it happens to be, for essentially the same reasons you reject all those others: because the onus is on the believer to provide proof for their assertion.

Atheism, being the complete lack of any document or dogma, can never be fundamental. It has no core belief to be fundamental to.

What an atheist can be however, is passionate. Passionate about the horrible wastefulness of religion, the retarding of scientific inquiry fundamentalism inevitably demands and the dangerous tribalism it always foments.

When one stands up and says that faith is a dangerous thing that mankind would be better off without, he may be speaking passionately and you may find his words offensive, but this doesn't place him in the same category as the radical Muslim and Christian fundamentalists who actively try to force their beliefs on society.

Atheists and religious fundamentalists are not simply opposite ends of the same spectrum with agnostics falling somewhere in the middle. Agnostic/gnostic deals with a different question altogether. It asks, "Can the existence of a god(s) ever be truly known?" While fundamentalists are by definition gnostic on this question, there are many theists who are agnostic yet still believers. The atheist is not making a definitive declaration about the existence of god(s) at all, but merely stating he or she lacks a belief in one, so most would be agnostic-atheists.

Does the fact that the atheist admits we can never prove god(s) doesn't exist weaken our position? Hardly. I can't be certain that a meteor isn't going to fall from the sky and kill me when I walk out of my house.

But without some proof that there is a significant chance this will happen, I don't allow this lack of proof to affect my daily life. I may be technically agnostic, but practically atheist about getting brained by a meteor.

Atheism is not only a viable alternative to faith, it is, I believe, the most probable, most promising, and most positive view of life.

Butch Bailey is a forester who lives in Hattiesburg.


Link to original post:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,170425



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2011 05:34PM by atheist&happy:-).

Perhaps it is an argument of connotation. As I see it, an atheist is one who denies or rejects god. A "non-theist" would be someone who merely has an absence of opinion or belief one way or another. That's how we're all born - non-theists. An agnostic is one who has opinions but isn't certain. Maybe god exists, maybe not, I don't know.

Here's how I solve the quibble. As a matter of technicality, I'm agnostic. I don't know for certain that there is no god, however, I have not seen compelling evidence that there IS A GOD, either. Therefore, as a matter of practicality, I live my life as an atheist. I choose to live as if there is not a god and I deny his/her/its existence even though I lack proof positive one way or the other.

As an analogy, maybe there is a Bigfoot or little green men from across the galaxy or unicorn and fairies, however, I have not seen compelling evidence that they do, indeed, exist. Therefore, I choose to live my life as if they do NOT exist, thus, I'm an "atheist" when it comes to the subject of Bigfoot and space aliens, etc.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

but more as an affirmation that I am not inclined to seek out, need or adopt imaginary friends. I am without a god. That is the path I was on throughout childhood until emotionally manipulated into TSCC.

Here is some information from an article on nontheism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

"Nontheism is a term that covers a range of both religious[1] and nonreligious[2] attitudes characterized by the absence of — or the rejection of — theism or any belief in a personal god or gods. Invented originally as a synonym for secularism (see below), it has become an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions united by a naturalist approach, such as agnosticism, skepticism, and atheism. It is in use in the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology. It is sometimes used synonymously with the term atheism."

I like the analogies, and theists have a difficult time understanding how we lump their one powerful almighty gawd with all the other things that most likely do not exist. Tradition or wanting to believe does not equate with evidence.

You could start a new religion. So we have the FSM, a flying teapot, and now dessert in orbit vs. cannibalistic bread, and water. This is not a difficult choice.