[QUOTE=Brian-E;376194]So what do we mean by the word "atheist"?[/QUOTE]

a-theist translates to "person against believing in a god"(or multiple gods like in Roman and Greek culture).

Religious institutions have a tendency to impose their will on society as a whole and marginalize everyone not paying duties to their church and its leaders. Throughout history churches have been succesful to make basic human rights and access to government tax raised benefits dependent on religious affiliation. During the George Bush era they passed a law or tried to pass a law to make religious organizations the distributors of welfare funds.

This abuse of power by churches could only be succesfully fought when enough power rested by individual people, e.g. after the industrial revolution. These people were called a-theists, whereas they could better be descibed as "people against abusive use of religious power". In Europe atheists are now mostly known as humanists.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;376194]Any discussion of what this thread is actually about should probably include a consideration of the definition of the word "atheism".

The definition is sufficiently unclear to have caused a rather silly disagreement between Richard Dawkins and Andrew Brown (a religion correspondent working for "The Guardian"), and those are two people who normally know what they are talking about.

As explained in [URL="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/06/13/should-babies-be-considered-atheists-depends-on-your-definition-of-the-word/"]this article[/URL] by Hemant Mehta, Richard Dawkins made the comment that babies have no religion, and this was ridiculed by Andrew Brown who said that babies cannot possibly take an atheist position and so it is silly to ascribe them that by default. But, explains Mehta, Dawkins was not saying that babies are atheists when he said that they have no religion.

So what do we mean by the word "atheist"?[/QUOTE]Buddhism is the caconical example of an atheistic religion. That should be sufficient information for you to develop a notion of theism/atheism.

[QUOTE=tha;376199][...] In Europe atheists are now mostly known as humanists.[/QUOTE]
While in strong personal agreement with the rest of your post (about misuse of power through the ages by religious organisations), I feel compelled to put a small question mark by this last sentence. Humanism may be correlated with atheism, meaning that people who are one are often the other too, but I see them as different concepts. I think the concept of religious humanism, for example, is a valid one.

Humanism, as I see it, is more closely tied with [U]secularism[/U], and I see secularism as independent of belief or non-belief in god(s).

[QUOTE=xilman;376200]Buddhism is the caconical example of an atheistic religion. That should be sufficient information for you to develop a notion of theism/atheism.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. Worth looking into.

It seems to me that "atheism" is a conscious decision just as believing in some deity is. Having written that, I have to consider the common situation of a child being incultcated (sic) with theistic ideas before the age at which it can reasonably question them. I think that it could also be plausibly asserted that to an infant, its caregivers might as well be gods. To go a step further, one might say that theistic beliefs are perversions/alterations/diversions/etc. of the natural bond between a child and its primary caregiver(s).

"Having no religion" does not seem to be congruent with "atheism." But I don't quite agree with those who assert that "Atheism is just another religion," though that statement still begs the question of the definitions of the key words.

Incultcated. I like that.:smile:

[QUOTE=kladner;376207]...
"Having no religion" does not seem to be congruent with "atheism." But I don't quite agree with those who assert that "Atheism is just another religion," though that statement still begs the question of the definitions of the key words.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't all active religious belief require some kind of belief in
some kind of supernaturalism? To remain non-pedantic, I won't
equate that with belief in a God, but it's close.

Active atheism means more than just having no religion, it
means believing that everything supernatural - including a God -
is non-existent, just fantastic.

Defining the key words may be difficult if they're to apply
to everyone universally; but difficult isn't necessarily impossible.
If one has a personal definition of religion and/or atheism,
if takes some courage to take them to the world's attention.

[QUOTE=davar55;376366]Doesn't all active religious belief require some kind of belief in some kind of supernaturalism? [/QUOTE]Not obviously so. Not obvious to me, any way.

Richard Dawkins seems to display a relgious intensity in his beliefs. Einstein appeared to be in awe of the observation that the universe is amenable to exploration through the scientific method and explanation through mathematical models.

Neither of the above showed any apparent belief in supernaturalism.

[QUOTE=xilman;376378]Not obviously so. Not obvious to me, any way.

Richard Dawkins seems to display a relgious intensity in his beliefs. Einstein appeared to be in awe of the observation that the universe is amenable to exploration through the scientific method and explanation through mathematical models.

Neither of the above showed any apparent belief in supernaturalism.[/QUOTE]

A "religious intensity" in his beliefs in, among other things, atheism,
doesn't mean belief in religion, intense or otherwise. It's the religion
thing I was referring to as implying a belief in the supernatural.

And the "awe" you referred to is certainly a wonderful way to
regard science and the universe, and the fact that his "awe"
did not significantly involve religion or God is a testament to
the man's scientific and general integrity. Also shows that "awe"
isn't solely the province of religion.
So of course no supernatural here too.

Were these two examples of thinkers who found their beliefs
outside the realm of religion and thus presumably nonsupernaturally,
supposed to support or contradict my statement that active
religious belief seems to require some kind of supernatural belief?

[QUOTE=xilman;376200]Buddhism is the caconical example of an atheistic religion.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be pedantic here (and please correct me if I am wrong), but Buddhism is not technically a religion (by most definitions), but rather a belief system.

[QUOTE=chalsall;376399]Sorry to be pedantic here (and please correct me if I am wrong), but Buddhism is not technically a religion (by most definitions), but rather a belief system.[/QUOTE]
You are going to have to decide for yourself on that one.

Buddhism is very widely described as a religion and I go along with that usage.

One person who has thought about the problem of defining religion says:
[quote=http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/definition.htm]So far, the best definition of religion I have seen is in [I]The Encyclopedia of Philosophy[/I]. It lists traits of religions rather than declaring religion to be one thing or another, arguing that the more markers present in a belief system, the more”religious like” it is: [LIST][*]Belief in supernatural beings (gods).[*]A distinction between sacred and profane objects.[*]Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.[*]A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.[*]Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.[*]Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.[*]A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.[*]A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.[*]A social group bound together by the above.[/LIST] This definition captures much of what religion is across diverse cultures. It includes sociological, psychological, and historical factors and allows for broader gray areas in the concept of religion. It’s not without flaws, though. The first marker, for example, is about “supernatural beings” and gives “gods” as an example, but thereafter only gods are mentioned. Even the concept of “supernatural beings” is a bit too specific; Mircea Eliade defined religion in reference to a focus on “the sacred” and that is a good replacement for “supernatural beings” because not every religion revolves around the supernatural.

A better definition is:
[LIST][*]Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).[*]A distinction between sacred and profane objects.[*]Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.[*]A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.[*]Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.[*]Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.[*]A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.[*]A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.[*]A social group bound together by the above.[/LIST][/quote]