Theists mistaken on atheism ( Dietary ethics)
Rupert > wrote:
> > Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
> blatant of lies, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn
> animal", it is quite obvious that by "unborn animal" he means an
> animal which may have been conceived, but has not yet been born. It is
> beyond rational dispute, to borrow one of your phrases. Your claim to
> the contrary strikes me as absurd, as does your claim that it doesn't
> strike me as absurd.
>
The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses
"atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God.
Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority)
would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly
dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold
that an atheist is a person without a belief in God.
The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means
that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to
affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be
without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no
importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not
a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying
the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the
lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see
this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and
"-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods.
The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means
"not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist
(i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it
means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or
without a belief in God.
|