Comments on: Definitions http://toddhdow.org Thoughts, opinions and various writings Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:09:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Reg Gilbert http://toddhdow.org/definitions/#comment-1765 Reg Gilbert Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:20:20 +0000 http://toddhdow.org/definitions/#comment-1765 Defining atheism a the belief that religion should be suppressed is false. There surely are atheists that believe that, since atheism is often accompanied by the belief that religion interferes with rational thought and is accordingly a source of war. But many atheists have full respect for religous belief -- many once did believe, continue to seek to believe, and will believe again (indeed, this process, which can also be called conversion, is an integral part of many evangelical autobiographies). to define athesim as a belief that religion should be suppressed is in effect a smear -- an attempt to define by falsehood in order to achieve an aim. The aim in this case is to demonize atheists in all cases as not only wrong but oppressors. I would argue that smearing atheism in this blanket way is not only mistaken, it is in fact blasphemous. Doubt is an integral part of the Christian experience. Doubt can and does cross over to pure unbelief. But God has given us the right to doubt and to not believe. To deine atheism as the desire to suppress religion is to assert that God was not sincere in offering men and women this choice, implying that if they take the choice, they work at cross purposes to his will. Yet it is his will that people be able to take the choice. Those who cannot feel comfortable with this choice could at least take comfort in how often the choice is temporary, and in how often the choice, both in its availablity and in its being taken, has in fact strengthened faith. Defining atheism a the belief that religion should be suppressed is false. There surely are atheists that believe that, since atheism is often accompanied by the belief that religion interferes with rational thought and is accordingly a source of war. But many atheists have full respect for religous belief — many once did believe, continue to seek to believe, and will believe again (indeed, this process, which can also be called conversion, is an integral part of many evangelical autobiographies). to define athesim as a belief that religion should be suppressed is in effect a smear — an attempt to define by falsehood in order to achieve an aim. The aim in this case is to demonize atheists in all cases as not only wrong but oppressors. I would argue that smearing atheism in this blanket way is not only mistaken, it is in fact blasphemous. Doubt is an integral part of the Christian experience. Doubt can and does cross over to pure unbelief. But God has given us the right to doubt and to not believe. To deine atheism as the desire to suppress religion is to assert that God was not sincere in offering men and women this choice, implying that if they take the choice, they work at cross purposes to his will. Yet it is his will that people be able to take the choice. Those who cannot feel comfortable with this choice could at least take comfort in how often the choice is temporary, and in how often the choice, both in its availablity and in its being taken, has in fact strengthened faith.

]]> By: barnetto http://toddhdow.org/definitions/#comment-965 barnetto Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:28:38 +0000 http://toddhdow.org/definitions/#comment-965 I'm glad that you've taken the time to give your definitions on some terms. Arguments happen sometimes where people each understand a term to mean something different, and maybe the people's position might otherwise be the same or they could reach a consensus save for the misunderstanding. That said, I disagree with your definition on account of your addition that atheists "believe religion should be surpressed". Atheism *only* has to do with belief in god. Secularism or some other term might better suited to describe a policy of suppressing religion? Also, you've defined atheism as the belief that there *is no god*, rather than "the lack of a god-belief, which many atheists use. There's subtle but important distinction there. A term does exist and came into usage in the 1990's to describe the belief you've stated, that there is no god. Atheists who hold that belief tend to refer to it as "strong atheism". Many buddhists don't have a belief in any gods, so that despite having a religion they are de facto atheists. I’m glad that you’ve taken the time to give your definitions on some terms. Arguments happen sometimes where people each understand a term to mean something different, and maybe the people’s position might otherwise be the same or they could reach a consensus save for the misunderstanding.

That said, I disagree with your definition on account of your addition that atheists “believe religion should be surpressed”. Atheism *only* has to do with belief in god. Secularism or some other term might better suited to describe a policy of suppressing religion?

Also, you’ve defined atheism as the belief that there *is no god*, rather than “the lack of a god-belief, which many atheists use. There’s subtle but important distinction there.

A term does exist and came into usage in the 1990′s to describe the belief you’ve stated, that there is no god. Atheists who hold that belief tend to refer to it as “strong atheism”. Many buddhists don’t have a belief in any gods, so that despite having a religion they are de facto atheists.

]]>