Futile Atheism

Originally posted by finnegan
I fear that FreakyKBH is displaying his common response to being accurately and relevantly refuted.

In the context of this thread there is an excellent response in that final sentence:

"As for atheism being a reactive position, of course it is. There's no surprise there. If nobody articulates the concept of god, then there is nothing to react to. Th ...[text shortened]... t. In order to make space for reason, it was necessary to escape from that dominance.

I fear that FreakyKBH is displaying his common response to being accurately and relevantly refuted.
Don't be afraid, finnie. It will all be okay.

"As for atheism being a reactive position, of course it is. There's no surprise there. If nobody articulates the concept of god, then there is nothing to react to. There would be no explicit atheists. It's only after someone concocts the proposition of 'god' that people can decide to give it a thumbs up, or a thumbs down. 'Atheism' can only become an explicit position once 'theism' has been articulated."
Riiight... and since belief in deity has been expressed by man in every known civilization since the dawn of time, it is--- as has been expressed--- the default position of man.

I would just add that of course atheism was a necessary position because, up to the 18th Century or later, Christianity dominated all thinking in the West. In order to make space for reason, it was necessary to escape from that dominance.
A quick brush up on history is in order. The Holy Roman Catholic Church dominated Western thought until the Reformation. Once freed, the place just exploded... including Christianity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The simplicity of the terms is not at issue.

To my knowledge, there aren't any people who identify themselves as aunicornists, despite the fact that no one believes they actually exist. You'd think the entire world would be classified as members of this group, but this isn't the case. Why? Because unicornism is not a default position of man. Belief ...[text shortened]... . Atheism is a reaction to that default position, regardless of whatever that deity entails.

What would be the point in labelling all the groups you were a member of? I could never finish the list of things I am a member of, it would be nonsensical. I assume you are an aunicornist and since we have no disagreeement I do not continue to label myself so for public awareness. That we disagree about atheism is cause to show the label for discussion (one of the purposes of this forum). If you suddenly claimed to be a unicornist, I would raise my aunicornist banner and argue with you.

Your position rests on whether a belief in a deity is a normative state. Atheism cannot be claimed (in your argument) to have a belief worth above the concept value unless you can prove theism is a default status. To my knowledge you have not yet done this, nor do I believe you are able to.

Originally posted by Starrman
What would be the point in labelling all the groups you were a member of? I could never finish the list of things I am a member of, it would be nonsensical. I assume you are an aunicornist and since we have no disagreeement I do not continue to label myself so for public awareness. That we disagree about atheism is cause to show the label for discussion ...[text shortened]... a default status. To my knowledge you have not yet done this, nor do I believe you are able to.

Name the civilization that had no belief in deity(s).

Originally posted by Starrman
What would be the point in labelling all the groups you were a member of? I could never finish the list of things I am a member of, it would be nonsensical. I assume you are an aunicornist and since we have no disagreeement I do not continue to label myself so for public awareness. That we disagree about atheism is cause to show the label for discussion ...[text shortened]... a default status. To my knowledge you have not yet done this, nor do I believe you are able to.

How is it that the term atheist isn't in circulation until the early 16th century?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Name the civilization that had no belief in deity(s).

That is not proof of normative state, do you believe it is?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How is it that the term atheist isn't in circulation until the early 16th century?

And when did the term 'theism' arise? Are you suggesting use of the terms is equivalent to their existence in terms of belief or concepts?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How is it that the term atheist isn't in circulation until the early 16th century?

Because that's when it was translated into English. The concept had been around since at least the 5th century BCE, though (the Greek word being atheos).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Because that's when it was translated into English. The concept had been around since at least the 5th century BCE, though (the Greek word being atheos).

I believe you are referring to the crime of not believing in the gods of the state, of which Socrates was accused. He countered by saying he received inspiration from the divine voice.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Name the civilization that had no belief in deity(s).

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

See generally:

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

Originally posted by Starrman
That is not proof of normative state, do you believe it is?

No, but it certainly says an awful lot about the topic, doesn't it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, but it certainly says an awful lot about the topic, doesn't it.

Not really. I think it says more about how controlling religion can be, that the voices of those who disagree are often hardest to hear.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I believe you are referring to the crime of not believing in the gods of the state, of which Socrates was accused. He countered by saying he received inspiration from the divine voice.

Yes, those who rejected the gods of the state were called atheist, 'godless', by the followers of the gods. How about that!

The atomists were also atheists.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

See generally:

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

It's nice that you're able to Google with such resounding success. However, the aim of Hinduism is for Brahmam, Eternal Being or Reality. Doesn't get more god-like than that, as far as I understand God.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, those who rejected the gods of the state were called atheist, 'godless', by the followers of the gods. How about that!

The atomists were also atheists.

You're confusing the terms. Early Christians were called godless, as well. Are you lumping your atheism in with theirs?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's nice that you're able to Google with such resounding success. However, the aim of Hinduism is for Brahmam, Eternal Being or Reality. Doesn't get more god-like than that, as far as I understand God.

Eternal Being or Reality doesn't dovetail with Deity.

I humbly place my Googling Skillz at your service:

"Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism shows how a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism_and_non-creationism