Why atheism makes you mean

[S.A.M.]

If you think that description you posted of the Navajo religion has any relationship to the beliefs or practices of traditional Navajo, you have a lot to learn about "awareness" of Western theistic (which includes Muslim, from the Navajo pov) descriptions of other peoples' religions.

I'm sure.

OK, we're getting into some strange territory now. Theism without deity - - -- tell you what, I will for the sake of argument agree with you that atheism does not exist except in certain insane individuals, and we will invent new words for whatever it is that you are talking about.

Brahmaan is not a deity that is worshipped anywhere on the Indian subcontinent, yet it is the essence of theism in varied Indian theistic beliefs. Just because its not your definition of "religion", does not make it any less their theism.

I'm sure that we can find some category word for the difference between the successful societies whose theism involves actual deities, like the Islamic paragons of durablility, and those whose theism is of this other kind not involving actual deities, such as the many examples presented to you.

No doubt. There are many many versions of theism and one can attempt to classify them according to our understanding of what they represent. But at the end, you're still left with the question: where are the surviving atheist societies?

 

[Anti-Flag]

Coolies for instance, is a racial slur when used by the British against Indians. Nigger is another. I think the problem cannot be addressed by eliminating words as the racists adopt them. Its their problem, not mine.

So as long as you don't intend the word to be racist you should be free to say it?
I think you'd find there are many people here who would never believe your use of the word "kaffir" isn't meant in a derogatory way, and something tells me if everyone referred to you as the resident "coolie" you'd have a problem with it for the same reasons.

 

[S.A.M.]

So as long as you don't intend the word to be racist you should be free to say it?
I think you'd find there are many people here who would never believe your use of the word "kaffir" isn't meant in a derogatory way, and something tells me if everyone referred to you as the resident "coolie" you'd have a problem with it for the same reasons.

If I refer to you as a kaffir and you're not one, you can argue on racial overtones. However, since it has been several years since I worked as a luggage usher on a railway station, I am free to consider it a racial slur.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Of course. Its the crux of sciforums Religion forum to treat nonbelievers in atheism with less respect that believers.

There are no such things as believers or nonbelievers in atheism.
1111

 

[(Q)]

And we get all heated about it. If another Muslim called me atheist, I would get similarly heated. Is atheist a slur? Westerners have frequently co-opted the sacred from Eastern cultures and attempted to diminish or demonise it. Or co-opted ordinary terms that do not have racial undertones. Coolies for instance, is a racial slur when used by the British against Indians. Nigger is another. I think the problem cannot be addressed by eliminating words as the racists adopt them. Its their problem, not mine.

In other words, Sam justifies her racism because, "It's their problem, not mine." :thumbsup:

 

[iceaura]

But at the end, you're still left with the question: where are the surviving atheist societies?

By your definition of "atheist", there are none. We are agreed. All sane, responsible human societies that I know of have myths and stories and spiritual teachings incorporated into their culture, and such godless theisms are present even in cultures with no actual deities.

But we still have so many that fail to fit the more common definition of "theism", the one I was naively using, which requires the presence of at least one deity. So perhaps we still have a basis for discussion ?

Brahmaan is not a deity that is worshipped anywhere on the Indian subcontinent, yet it is the essence of theism in varied Indian theistic beliefs. Just because its not your definition of "religion", does not make it any less their theism.

Arrogant colonialist projection. Do not tell me what my definition of religion is.

Your continual confusion of theism and religion, while it is clarified by the discovery that your conception of "theism" includes completely godless belief systems, is still not shared by me. My judgment of whether or not something is a religion does not depend on whether I recognize their theism.

If I refer to you as a kaffir and you're not one, you can argue on racial overtones

If you refer to me as a "kaffir" in the manner common among Saudi clerics and wealthy Muslim tourists, I will take it as a slur whether I am one or not.

 

[S.A.M.]

By your definition of "atheist", there are none. We are agreed. All sane, responsible human societies that I know of have myths and stories and spiritual teachings incorporated into their culture, and such godless theisms are present even in cultures with no actual deities.

But we still have so many that fail to fit the more common definition of "theism", the one I was naively using, which requires the presence of at least one deity. So perhaps we still have a basis for discussion ?
Arrogant colonialist projection. Do not tell me what my definition of religion is.

Your continual confusion of theism and religion, while it is clarified by the discovery that your conception of "theism" includes completely godless belief systems, is still not shared by me. My judgment of whether or not something is a religion does not depend on whether I recognize their theism.

So according to you Zorastrians who worship fire are atheists?

Btw, may I suggest a linguistics thread on theism vs religion? Or wait I will open one.

 

[draqon]

Atheism is power to decide. One chooses atheism because his belief is strong and he will not bow underneath a God, especially one who chooses to hide himself, yet alone is incapable of being understood.

I am an atheist and that gives me power, for I have decided myself a belief and my belief is my world.

 

[iceaura]

So according to you Zorastrians who worship fire are atheists?

What ?

This edit in may have been missed, from before.

Lets' begin here:
“
Originally Posted by SAM
However, you have to agree that calling it atheism, is deceptive and not worthy of you.
”
It wasn't me, in the first place, but a few of its practitioners, who were so adamant in their objections to the common theistic descriptions of what they were doing that they denied having a religion at all.

That was an error on their part, I believe, brought about by the common theistic insistence that religion and theism are equivalent. But if you prefer their viewpoint, and want to discuss successful and durable cultures that had no religion, just say so.

It is very difficult to get a bigoted theist from a strongly theistic culture to even recognize an atheistic religious culture - excuse me, old term, a culture with a religion whose theism involves no actual deities - and that may explain their frustration. As people more intimately familiar than most with at least two non-Abrahamic religions , confronted with the Abrahamist description of their culture and practices as involving "painted and masked men" "worshipping gods" through "ceremonial dance" , they may be perhaps excused ?

 

[S.A.M.]

What ?

This edit in may have been missed, from before.

So the Navajo Yeis are not deities because...?

 

[Anti-Flag]

If I refer to you as a kaffir and you're not one, you can argue on racial overtones. However, since it has been several years since I worked as a luggage usher on a railway station, I am free to consider it a racial slur.

How convenient for you.
In reality what you fail to account for is the definitions of the words involved and it isn't you alone who decides that.
Either might be considered 'factual' as you like to think of it, and either can be deemed offensive.
I can only hope people come up with a derogatory word to use towards you the same way you use kaffir, then perhaps you'll appreciate it.

 

[S.A.M.]

How convenient for you.
In reality what you fail to account for is the definitions of the words involved and it isn't you alone who decides that.
Either might be considered 'factual' as you like to think of it, and either can be deemed offensive.
.

Since the word kaffir was bastardised by western colonialists, I see no reason to apologise for their racism and ignorance. Like the word jihad, its not their definition that should be upheld, rather, the correct one. Kaffir is Arabic for unbeliever. If you feel discriminated against for being called an unbeliever, you should ask yourself why.

I can only hope people come up with a derogatory word to use towards you the same way you use kaffir, then perhaps you'll appreciate it

Like Islamic? Muslim? jihadist? Or even, theist?

 

[iceaura]

So the Navajo Yeis are not deities because...?

You'd have to ask the believers, especially those who are familiar with what you mean by "deity".

The short answer, from my sources, is that they are not worshipped, given reverence, asked for advice, prayed to, etc.

Since the word kaffir was bastardised by western colonialists, I see no reason to apologise for their racism and ignorance. Like the word jihad, its not their definition that should be upheld, rather, the correct one

Until it is upheld, including by the Saudi clerics and wealthy Muslim tourists who use it as a slur, I see no problem with taking the word as it is meant by those who use it - a slur.

I can only hope people come up with a derogatory word to use towards you the same way you use kaffir, then perhaps you'll appreciate it

"Heathen" would be traditional.

 

[GeoffP]

Only if its offensive to you to be designated "not a Muslim" or "athiest". You could always convert, that would take care of that.

Ah, unlikely. But you're saying: convert or be offended. How about calling people "non-muslims" instead of "unbelievers" in the first place? "Unbelievers" believe in something.

They've even turned Islamic into a slur

Oh, well then revert to Christianity or Judaism. That would take care of that.

, and jihad.

True, the word is a bit bastardized now, but it's the "little jihad" that's actually so big that we all object to, you see. If it were only used in the one way and only about personal growth, it would be fine.

Then point out one which doesn't

China.

Oooh the Nazis won Nobel Prizes!!!

In your infantilism, you are calling Einstein a Nazi? Oh, well done.

Superstititious notions like marriage and family? Society?

Oh? These are only defined theistically? What a shallow world you do inhabit.

All societies defined by "state atheism"

China, Vietnam, Soviet Bloc, etc. The Soviets didn't fail because of "state atheism" (a prospect you'd find a bit difficult to prove ) but rather because of economic pressure and a modicum of democratic pressure.

That was an explanation. Societies become religious, move up, become athiest, disappear.

That was staggeringly myopic. Which ones? The Aztec? Maya? Assyrians? Assyrian Christians? Zoroastrians? Which of those were atheists?

Theism, for whatever reason, comes attached with rights and responsibilities, to self and others, and abdication is considered accountable.

So is tolerance, in some cases; you know, putting up with gay people, women, unbelievers and so forth. Is that also prosocial? Funny way of being nice. Cruel to be kind? Or kind in the interim to be cruel later? Hard to say.

 

[S.A.M.]

You'd have to ask the believers, especially those who are familiar with what you mean by "deity".

The short answer, from my sources, is that they are not worshipped, given reverence, asked for advice, prayed to, etc.

Could you give me a link to a Navajo site that explains their atheist beliefs?

 

[Anti-Flag]

Since the word kaffir was bastardised by western colonialists, I see no reason to apologise for their racism and ignorance. Like the word jihad, its not their definition that should be upheld, rather, the correct one. Kaffir is Arabic for unbeliever. If you feel discriminated against for being called an unbeliever, you should ask yourself why.

I see, the correct definition of words is whatever SAM says it is. Never changes with you.

Like Islamic? Muslim? jihadist? Or even, theist?

3 of them are self descriptions in common usage, not derogatory terms.
Either way I guess that's your problem and all you need do is convert, as you so eloquently put it.
Only like it when it works in your favour eh?

 

[Anti-Flag]

"Heathen" would be traditional.

Would that have the same effect as a sly underhand insult, like the general meaning of kaffir? One that can be covered with the phrase "but it's a factual description, honest".
It seems lacking to me.

 

[S.A.M.]

I see, the correct definition of words is whatever SAM says it is. Never changes with you.

Not at all. Ask any native Arabic speaker what kaffir means.

3 of them are self descriptions in common usage, not derogatory terms.

Like Islamic terrorist? Islamict militant? jihadist?

Either way I guess that's your problem and all you need do is convert, as you so eloquently put it.
Only like it when it works in your favour eh?

Not at all, I know that only westerners have the right to offend [aka freedom of expression] and decree what is and MUST be offensive for the rest of the world.

 

[iceaura]

Could you give me a link to a Navajo site that explains their atheist beliefs?

They have no "atheist" beliefs, in the special sense you have given us to understand that you use the word.

They just don't have gods, in the sense that differentiates gods from natural entities and/or storytelling beings of various kinds.

But even a quick and cursory Google turns up a lot of stuff like this: http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/dine.html or this, if you have academic access: http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=joap.025.0208a

This discussion of the colonial imposition of concepts from Western Civilization on other people has a lot of content piled up over the years, and the Navajo religion has played a disproportionately large role - for one thing, it's still here. It wasn't wiped out by the great epidemics and subsequent Abrahamic colonization of North America.

It seems lacking to me.

It's not as ugly any more, true. But I think it would serve.

 

[Anti-Flag]

It's not as ugly any more, true. But I think it would serve.

Now all we need is someone prepared to go down to her level to try it. Where's Q?