... Such terms
also help to
validate the
opponent, in
that it implies
a presumption
that the "something-ist"
you derive your
own name from is
fundamentally
legitimate.
For a person to
say that he believes
in God and
formalize it
with a word like
"theist"
is akin to
saying, since I
believe in
aliens, I am
justified in
calling myself
an "alienist."
A mere
belief in
something is not
enough to
constitute any
special
distinction.
If someone else
comes along and
says he's an
"a-alienist,"
that would only
help to
legitimize the "alienists."
Lastly, such
terms place
oneself on the
same level as
his opponent.
If a person says
I'm a theist, in
order to make it
appear his
belief in God
represents a
respectable
belief system,
then "atheist"
appears to mean
that the denial
of God is a
belief
too, rather than
a rejection of a
belief based
upon
sound logic.
It is for this
very reason
"creationists"
(which is a
nonsense word in
itself) embrace
the word
"evolutionist."
The word
"evolutionist"
relegates their opponents'
views to be on
the same level
as their own, as
a type of
opinion or even
a religion.
A person cannot
be an
"evolutionist"
anymore than one
can be a
"photosynthesis-ist."
Evolution is
just one of the
topics contained
within the field
of biology and
is a fact of
nature.
I'm not an
atheist, I'm a
rationalist, and
I'm just telling
people it is an
absurdity to
believe in
anything,
including God,
without real
proof.
"In
modern
times,
the
term
evolution
is
widely
used,
but
the
terms
evolutionism
and
evolutionist
are
rarely
used
in
scientific
circles.
However,
all
three
of
these
terms
are
commonly
used
by
anthropologists,
sociologists,
and
other
scholars
outside
the
physical
and
life
sciences;
these
terms
are
used
to
refer
to
theories
about
the
development
of
cultures
and
civilizations.
Scientists
object
to
the
terms
evolutionism
and
evolutionist
because
the
-ism
and
-ist
suffixes
accentuate
belief
rather
than
scientific
study.
Conversely,
creationists
use
those
same
two
terms
partly
because
the
terms
accentuate
belief,
and
partly
perhaps
because
they
provide
a
way
to
package
their
opposition
into
one
group,
seemingly
atheist
and
materialist,
designations
under
which
many
scientists
would
not
like
to
be
cast.
Thereby
the
creationists
deride
the
scientists'
theories
as
mere
belief
that
ignores
divine
intervention,
contrary
to
what
creationists
think
is a
more
preferable
explanation."
In coming to
terms with some
of the logical
problems
with the use of
the term
"atheist," many
people who
don't believe in
god prefer the
term
"nontheist." Non-theists
see a stand
against God as a
logical
absurdity,
because the
question of God
is in fact
meaningless, in
that it is no
different than
taking a stand
against
the existence of
invisible pink
elephants.
Simply put,
taking
formal stands,
pro or con, on
what is just
imagination or
supposition in
the first place
-- is irrational.
When Buddha was
asked if there
is a God, he
would simply
remain
completely
silent -- there
is just no way
to rationally
respond to an
irrational
question.
If something is
not known to be
true, then how
can one possibly
speak
intelligently
regarding a belief
in it?
Conversely, how
can one build a
doctrine, dogma,
or belief system
out of simply
not believing in
what is pure
conjecture in
the first place?
"The
Positivist
position, as
formulated
by Ayer, was
that 'asking
whether God
exists is
simply not
meaningful.'
The
perceived
dichotomy
between
theism and
atheism was
merely a
case of
mutually
exclusive
suppositions,
neither of
which could
be
empirically
tested, and
neither of
which made
any kind of
meaningful
assertion.
To a Logical
Positivist,
a statement
like 'God
exists' is a
kind of
tautology,
since the
very concept
of a deity
is
inseparable
from the
assertion
that it
exists. It
would
therefore be
something
like saying
'dragons
have wings.'
By the same
token, the
positive
rejection of
such a
tautology
("There is
no God")
would itself
be a
meaningless
tautology,
akin to
saying
'dragons do
not
have wings.'
According to
the
Positivists,
neither
assertion
has meaning,
since both
involve the
creation of
a separate
entity, one
having wings
and another
not having
wings. The
fact that
neither
creature is
observable
renders the
issue
meaningless.
By
recognizing
the dilemma
of divinity
as a similar
fallacy, the
Positivists
hoped to
escape the
endless
cycle of
belief and
disbelief."
What I am is
a Rationalist,
and terms like
"theist,"
"atheist,"
"creationist,"
and
"evolutionists"
all represent
non-sequiturs
because they
either try to
legitimize
fantasy or
de-legitimize
fact.
Rational
thought is
thought based
upon one thing:
sound reasoning. The Church of
Rationality
is about how to
be a good,
ignorance
fearing
"Rationalist."
The Church of
Rationality must
deal in part
with what isn't
true, but it is
untimely about
what is true --
what is known
to be true, or
what is most
likely to be
true based upon
sound logical
reasoning.
Being a "Church"
the Church
of Rationality
does try to
answer the
great questions
of life from
a completely
rational point
of view.
A belief in a
supreme being
and formal
religions all
fall into the
category of
irrationalism
because they are
believed in
primarily out of
faith, and not
logically
deduced.
Consequently,
much of this
site pertains to
the debunking of
religious
mythology, most
specifically
-- fundamental
Christianity,
since it is
Christian
fundamentalism
that has in
recent times
invaded our
schools,
government, and
general way of
life with their
system of
misinformation,
insisting that
each and every
detail in the
Bible is
factually true
-- regardless of
how ridiculous,
contradictory,
or illogical the
accounts are.
Our children (as
well as we
ourselves) have
a right not to
be lied to and
to not have
nonsense forced
down our
throats.