tweakabelle -> RE: What is your religious belief (6/28/2011 2:55:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: errantgeek quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No, it doesn't. It means literally without god. Taoism and Buddhism are often considered "religions"; neither has a god. You also notably excluded the key part of my post: connotation. The meanings and connotation of words change over time, and prominent atheist writers (Martin, Smart, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, among others) have been quick to adopt this and make very strong cases atheism is inclusive of irreligious and nontheist viewpoints as well. "Theism" has evolved in meaning beyond its root "theos", or god, to be inclusive of "religion" or "faith"; therefore its opposite, "atheism", should evolve similarly to be inclusive of all beliefs that reject religion. Both of those religions you mentioned include spiritual and transcendental elements, which are metaphysical propositions and the key point, here. Religion, defined as best it can be in a sentence, is a social, moral and ethical framework based upon a set of metaphysical propositions (whether that's transcendentalism, spirituality, god, whatever). The rejection of a framework in which said metaphysical propositions is a necessary condition is key to atheism as has been redefined to reflect contemporary society, as I see it. Once a person rejects religion, they are an atheist. Why they have rejected religion, including statements regarding the existence of a god, dictates what subset of atheist they are. This is an interesting argument and not one without merit either. It makes sense that those who actively believe - theists - should be identified as such. And there is a case for all the rest of us non-believers to be lumped in together. However, I'm yet to be convinced that atheism is the term to do it. It already has baggage - historically, it refers to those who have the diametrically opposite belief to theists, those who are convinced there is no God. So the entire issue is framed in theistic terms. Often, those who define the language of the discourse end up winning the argument. As you say, these little connotations are important. Those who don't believe are a broad church (sorry I couldn't resist), including those who don't know, can't be bothered, are sceptical and so on. That diversity of thought ought to be celebrated in the terminology we use. So I like the term freethinkers. It's positive and inclusive and free of any theistic residue.
|
|
|
|