[MD] a-theism and atheism

[david buchanan]

John said:
...But non-theist, I can live with, even though technically speaking "a-theist" means exactly the same thing.  Atheists in the flesh, however, usually aren't simply non-theists, they are usually actually strident anti-theists. They think religion should be abolished in the name of scientific rationality.  The MoQ sees through that silliness - "scientific rationality" as just another thing that's only in your head.

dmb says:
Well, no. You want religion and science to be equally bogus. You want to make science and religion equal by discrediting both. That's no good. The difference between them still obtains, regardless or whether or not you can find fanatical subscribers to scientism. Science itself - as a method - is better than religion because science is based on empirical evidence and it is far more open to change. It's more dynamic and more concrete. 
And yes, atheism and non-theism mean exactly the same thing. The connotation that concerns you, ironically, is a product of the fact that so many of today's atheists are actually former theists who are in recovery, who are trying to undo their religious upbringing. Their fanaticism and their stridence is a thought STYLE. They've exchanged the substance of one worldview for another but their style remains the same. Once a fanatic, always a fanatic. I've seen the same thing happen in politics. Check out David Horowitz, for example. He used to be a fanatical left-winger and now he's a fanatical right-winger. Different content, same form. 

And that kind of "atheists" defies the actual meaning of the term. It's not just that they don't believe in God. Their non-belief is asserted is asserted as a positive position rather than the absence of one. As Sam Harris points out, almost everyone is an atheist with respect to Zeus but they don't go around insisting that they is no Zeus. They don't set up organizations or have meetings about how there is no Zeus. Why bother? 

Next time you run across an annoying atheist, make sure you remember this. He's probably trying to exorcise some demons, he's trying to heal the damage, he's trying to grow. And that's a good instinct. But NOT believing something is just a form of rejection. It's purely negative. And eventually one has to decide on something positive to believe. And in such cases, science is not a crazy place to start. At least it's based on experience and it's open and checkable and refutable and testable. 

And this is the big difference between a theistic religion like Christianity and a non-theistic religion like Buddhism. Christianity says you should believe because it is written in the word of god, you should believe on the basis of faith and authority. Buddhism says you should go find out for yourself. That makes all the difference in the world.


> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>