Comments on: The Semantics of Secular Labels

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:14:51 +0000

I received an email from “David” from Indiana today on this topic. He writes at his blog titled “Free Thoughts.”

I don’t believe in a god in any sort of traditional sense, but I reject the label of Atheist. I think the word, besides having a negative connotation, does not convey what I really believe. I consider myself a Humanist in a broad and general sense, since I feel that the label more properly conveys what I believe, rather than what I don’t believe. Atheism is only the belief in no god, and has no other intrinsic beliefs.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:07:23 +0000

What is an atheist? The following is an excerpt of an interview with Robert Solomon found in the April/May 2007 issue of Free Inquiry:

I wouldn’t call myself just an atheist . . . people who call themselves atheists are just denying a very specific conception of God. And, even though I also deny that conception of God–I find it unintelligible, ethnocentric, and confined to the Judeo-Christian Muslim tradition–the most interesting questions about religion and spirituality are global, not just western. Buddhists don’t believe in that God but are they atheists? That question doesn’t make much sense. It isn’t enough to say, “I don’t believe in what most Christians believe.” That is not enough.

[fi: What more is necessary?]

I think a commitment not to just reject the beliefs of others but to decide what you do believe in. There is nothing in atheism that is a positive philosophy. That’s why a much prefer talking about secular humanism. Atheism is kind of provincial naysaying–I don’t believe in the God you believe in.” But secular humanism does promote a set of values: human freedom, creativity, responsibility, living passionately, mutual understanding . . .

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index

By: Dan Klarmann

Dan Klarmann — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:11:09 +0000

It is a toolmaker mentality to assume that anything that exists must have been created by some agent. Most things that exist are a simple result of the effects of the Laws of Nature running their course. Arguably everything, including our own creations, are manifestly the result of the infinitely complex interactions of these laws.

It doesn’t matter if those laws were created or just happened. They simply are, and apparently always have been. At least, they have over the several billion years that we can directly observe. They may not be constant, but they are continuous. That is, if the 6 fundamental constants upon which all physical observations depend have ever changed, they did so slowly and eventually we may be able to detect that change.

These laws certainly don’t change to suit our perception of them, or our beliefs. There are periodic attempts to popularize philosophies that claim that belief can upset causality. (Affirmations, Richard Bach, Nihilism, etc). But this has never been demonstrated under controlled circumstances. The Randi prize is still waiting.

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Wed, 16 May 2007 04:46:06 +0000

An ignostic doesn’t say you can’t know “God” under any circumstances, he says that he doesn’t know what you mean when you say “God exists;” hence, it is pointless to debate whether or not “God exists.”

By: Erika Price

Erika Price — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:04:08 +0000

Bruce: Someone jump in and correct me if I have it wrong, but agnosticism does not mean you “can’t” know the existence of God. It means you “don’t” know, at present, or that you have no evidence. Ignosticism holds that you “can’t” know God under any circumstances, and hence discussing the reality of a god or the nature of a god seems akin to them with discussing whether Humpty-Dumpty had a brown shell or a white shell. See Wiki’s entry on Ignosticism here .

By: saranga

saranga — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:17:58 +0000

what does your study say about Islam , hiduism, buddhism?

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:37:10 +0000

thought! Nietzsche said that “God is ” and most people categorize him as an atheist (as I believe he did as well). Still, if he believes that God “is ” that would imply that at one time Nietzsche allowed for the idea that God was “once alive”. That would suggest that he believed in a deity but now feels the deity to be . An aetheist would be of the opinion that there is nor never was a God.

As I am not a practiced Philosopher I am curious if this suggests that Nietzsche should be classified differently and is there a category of people that believed in a God but that he no longer existst. A person who believes in God, whether he is or not, shouldnt be considered an atheist. Or…should they. Just a random, curious thought.

By: Bruce Ramsey

Bruce Ramsey — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:26:19 +0000

I use to consider myself a “Christian agnostic”, but, since it’s a given that agnostic means “you can’t know if there is a God or not”, that, to me, seems as presumptious as saying there IS a God, or, there is NO God. I mean, how can you presume that you can’t know whether or not there is a God? I now consider myself a Christian whose reason battles with his faith.

By: childofGod41058

childofGod41058 — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:08:40 +0000

This article has nothing to do with Christianity, and I am confused as to why Netscape labled this article, “Are you a True Christian?” In any event, of course there is a God (Creator). Since there is creation, there is a Creator. Besides, we are on this earth for such a short time in comparison with eternity. Wouldn’t you rather live your life believing and serving God and die and find out there is no God, rather than living your life not believing in God, dying, and finding out He does exist? Only a fool would believe that he is his own in this world…we all belong to our Creator, the one and only living God.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 15 May 2007 12:43:47 +0000

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” Hebrews 9:27

Disbelief is no excuse!