kosch schrieb:wenn jemand von Euch Latein gehabt haben sollte, wird er in dem Wort Atheismus feststellen, dass es im ursprünglichen Sinne
"Weg von Gott" heissen soll.
Wer sich also von Gott abwendet, der gibt damit zu, daß es einen Gott gibt :D
Und so dreht man sich im Kreis . . . . . :shock:
Wer besser Latein kann als ich, der sollte das Wort nochmal auseinanderflücken . . .
SECULAR NATION (a publication of Atheist Alliance International
),
Volume 8, Number 2 - Second Quarter, 2003, page 2-3
President's Message
The A Word
Bobbie Kirkhart
I am an agnostic, atheist, freethinker, humanist (with or without secular in front) nontheist, rationalist and realist, but I only occasionally claim the label igtheist. I might be a eupraxophian-or is it eupraxophist?-if I were sure that I could pronounce it correctly under pressure. But most of the time I just stick with atheist, or occasionally positive atheist.
Perhaps some definitions are in order:
Agnostic-One without knowledge of the existence of a god or gods. (This fits most of us, as some kinds of gods might be theoretically possible, however unlikely.)
Atheist-One who has no belief in any god or gods.
Freethinker-One who does not follow authority, especially in matters of religion.
Humanist-One who follows a progressive life stance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity. That is the definition used by the American Humanist Association. The Council for Secular Humanism is in general agreement, though their definition is more detailed and includes strong freethought language.
Rationalist-One who believes that reason is a better way of finding truth than is faith or emotion.
I'm often asked why, with so many good labels, I almost always choose to use the one which inspires the most vitriolic reaction. It's not because I like the vitriol; it's because I know why it is coming.
Let's try another round of definitions, those based on the perceptions of many people, including most religionists. You will find some of these definitions in dictionaries, not always with the caveat that should be included, these are common perceptions and not philosophical definitions.
Agnostic-One who can't decide whether or not God exists.
Atheist-One who has faith that God does not exist.
Freethinker-One who thinks for herself. Almost everyone considers himself a freethinker.
Humanist-A humanitarian. (There was once an article in the Los Angeles Timesabout the fact that Pope John Paul II is a humanist.)
Rationalist-One who can be rational.
That none of these definitions correct is obvious. We freethinkers have been denied the right to define ourselves when authorities use these definitions. It is as if your dictionary defined Methodist as one who follows a regular system. The effect of these misdefinitions is to define true rationalists or freethinkers out of existence, and make nonbelief a property only of an extreme, irrational philosophy.
But for many of us freethinkers, nonbelief is vital to our philosophy. If we grew up in the United States or another country where religion is pervasive, our disbelief in the gods was most likely the product of our first rationalism, the first expression of our free thoughts. If I want to be an example of a person who lives her life without superstition, freely following my own conscience, so preoccupied with experiencing the beauty and soothing the pain of this world that I have no time to fantasize about a life after this wonderful and harsh reality, I must do that as a nonbeliever.
There are good freethinkers who prefer to use different terms for various reasons, some more legitimate than others.
Many who adamantly call themselves agnostic are simply misinformed. They accept the faulty definition of atheism as noting absolute logical certainty but understand the other definitions. Perhaps they are mislead by the fact that those of us who call ourselves atheist are less likely to abide defenses of those gods who are, in fact, impossible because of self-contradictory definitions or historical observation.
Many humanists make the point that atheism doesn't in itself imply any ethical standard, while humanism does. Semantically, I have no quarrel with this, but I see atheist groups all over the world doing good things. I believe the positive atheist philosophy of Gora, who founded the Atheist Centre of India, may explain the pleasant discrepancy between word and act.
Others who prefer terms humanist, freethinker or agnostic simply want to avoid social confrontation. While I wish they were bolder, we are not a religion and they are not required to make any confession of faithlessness.
Often I hear that we would attract more people if we used another word. Every number I know contradicts that, but there is no doubt that some people enter the freethought community only because they can embrace one of the fuzzier words.
Certainly Protestant is one of the most antagonistic words in religious labeling, as it meant-and still means in many churches-we protest the Catholic religion. Yet, Protestantism thrives.
I say atheist for an important reason, which I was reminded of recently when I described my youth to the Secular Humanists of the Low Country. I was a very religious, confused, questioning and guilt-ridden adolescent. One of the group asked me what piece of information might have freed me from the constraints of that awful superstition. I thought back on that time, and I remembered people I knew whom I now understand were nonbelievers but who did not feel they could dare say so in the 1950s in Enid, Oklahoma. If I had just one role model who openly did not believe, I said, I could have broken free.
Too often I am reminded that Enid, Oklahoma, in the 1950s is not very different from the San Fernando Valley, Harlem, Coral Gables, or Puget Sound today. The child's world is defined and usually confined by the parents, and it is frequently no bigger than the well-meaning parents' want it to be. Those who hurl insults at us are trying to protect the children, not realizing that those children are being shielded from joy, wisdom and- if I may say so-righteousness.
So, even if some people think it's a bit abrasive, even if others misdefine it as dogmatic, my ideological label of preference will remain atheist.