Nontheism
Tuesday, 1st April 2008Over the last ten years, I’ve had to write a few articles regarding theism, atheism, and theology in general. There are at least three articles about it here, and a percentage of both books were devoted to the goofiness of religions and those who practise them. You’d think therefore that I could stop now; but, obviously, I can’t: whatever I’ve written to date has been misunderstood, misread, or otherwise functionally ignored. So, here’s what we can all hope will prove to be the last word on the subject…as much as we can all doubt it.
First, let’s define a few terms. Just to be really sinister, we’ll define them correctly. Ready? Great. Here we go….
Atheism noun From a- [without] theos [deities] -ism [belief structure]. Literally: Without Deital Beliefs. That which lacks a deital belief system; that which lacks theism.
It may come as a surprise therefore:
Theism noun From theos [deities] -ism [belief structure]. Literally: Deital Belief Structure. That which is theistic; that which believes in deities.
Mindboggling, innit.
In case this remains somehow and improbably unclear: a theist, which practises theism, is that which believes in deities. Any deities. Allah, Baal, Cthulhu, Dagon, Erketu, Freya, Garphlat, Huitzilopochtli, Ictinike, Jehovah, Kali, Lucifer, Mars, Nike, Odin, Perun, Ricagumbeda, Set, Thor, Udo, Vacuna, Wuriupranili, Xenu, Ymir, Zeus, or any and/or all of several million other mythological bogeymen.
This might be a good time to mention that, in fact, while atheism means, by its etymology, the state of being without theism; the state of being without deital beliefs, its first use, which amusingly predates the standalone word theism, used the basic definition of that which lacks beliefs regarding Zeus. Just for those illiterate imbeciles who’d like to pretend that atheism does mean and has always meant that which believes that Jehovah doesn’t exist; atheism has never meant anything of the sort; ever.
That said, there will remain those wishing for a term applicable to those mythological creatures which believe positively that deities exist negatively. Meaning that, among idiots, there’s a strawmanned need for atheists to be positing the [certainly incorrect] belief that deities don’t exist. To be practical, such a belief would be impractical, and possibly impossible; no one would in fact maintain the belief that Jehovah didn’t exist, because then one would additionally need to maintain the belief that Allah didn’t exist, and Zeus, and Cthulhu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Swimming Spaghetti Monster, and the Tunnelling Spaghetti Monster, and so on, to infinity and beyond. Make sense? Do you believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn’t exist? How about the Invisible Purple Unicorn? Surely you’re not intellectually dishonest or lazy enough to believe with certainty that the pink IPU is fiction, without having formed a belief regarding the purple one. Are you? We’ll take it as read that you’re not; or, this is about the point within the article at which you’ll wander off to eat some crayons; either way, our definitions are set; we can move on.
Or, nearly. For those not of the cretaphagous persuasion, who are still wondering what manner of mythical moron would attempt to maintain a positive belief in the negative condition of deital existence, you’re in luck: based on the etymology, such a SpEd would be an antitheist. Like this:
Antitheism noun [also antetheism] from anti- [counter] theos [deities] –ism [belief structure] Literally: Countered Deital Belief Structure. That which counters theism; that which does believe that deities don’t exist.
In case this is all a bit too clever to grok, let’s move away from theology into another habit and its alternatives, to further explore how words work.
Smoker noun That which smokes.
Nonsmoker noun That which doesn’t smoke.
Antismoker noun That which doesn’t smoke, which coughs insanely whenever you do, which whimpers about its rights being trampled, which lobbies to outlaw smoking in this galaxy, which should sound suspiciously similar to the antitheist, apart from its unbelievably upsetting object of obsession.
I get it; I do. As a smoker [and as a biped], I can’t stand antismokers, any more than a theist [or a biped] can stand antitheists. We’re agreed: those who whimper about their rights being trampled by X, whether X is smoking or makebelieving, are far more annoying to all bipeds than X itself. Smokers, theists, nonsmokers, and atheists alike all hate antismokers and antitheists; I’d even suspect that antismokers hate antitheists while antitheists hate antismokers. It’s possible in fact that antismokers and antitheists each hate themselves. It would explain a couple things, anyway.
Of course, comparing smokers to theists will upset a few people on both sides. It shouldn’t. It is in fact the perfect analogy. One theist will believe in Jesus; another will believe in Allah. One smoker will smoke Camels; another will smoke Marlboros. One theist will believe in Jehovah, apart from Jesus; one smoker will smoke Chesterfields, apart from filters. Somewhere in there, we’ve got people chewing Kodiak; somewhere in there, we’ve got deists. Obviously, we've also got those unloyal junkies who'll smoke whatever's cheapest, brands notwithstanding; and we've got those unloyal junkies who'll believe that Some Greater Intelligence musta created everything, brands still notwithstanding. And so on.
Regardless what one smokes or makebelieves, the default state [the nonsmoker and the atheist] will decline to partake in the conditioned habit of smoking or makebelieving, but otherwise care very little. Don’t smoke? Cool. No one cares. Don’t makebelieve? Cool. No one cares.
The conditioned response to a conditioned habit [antismoking or antitheism] is of course the act of a fool. The antismokers and the antitheists are those meaningless ‘tards who neither do nor don’t smoke or makebelieve, but instead have gone to the alternate extreme: bitching and moaning and lobbying and whimpering that the constitution and other things they can’t understand guarantee that no extant condition is allowed to annoy them. Obviously, they’re wrong. Still, they whimper to no foreseeable end.
So. Here I am. I do smoke; I don’t makebelieve. I’m a smoker, and I’m an atheist. It’s that simple.
For those still here for which it isn’t yet simple enough, who are now wondering why I don’t know what agnostic means: prepare to learn….
Agnostic adj From a- [without] gnostos [knowledge] Literally: Without Knowledge. Functionally: Without Knowledge of Deities. That which doesn’t know whether deities exist or not; see synonyms at Everyone.
Okay? No one knows whether deities exist. Not me; not you; no one. Of those seven billion people clueless as to whether deities exist, none happens to know which deities, if any, exist. Because, to date, no deity has been proved to exist in point of fact. Deities may exist in truth, which itself is an abstract concept; none exists in fact, which in its simplest form is a truth which has been supported by evidence capable of surviving the scientific method. Do deities exist? Maybe. Which ones? No idea. Will I ever believe in one? No. Why not? Because the first time I’ll suspect that deities exist, it’ll be a tenth of a second after someone gets the Nobel Prize for having discovered, catalogued, dissected, and preserved a deity, then published his findings in a scientific journal pending falsification via review from his peers. Because that’s how facts are established in the real world; and I have no need to believe in facts: I can simply accept their factuality.
Make sense? Good. So. If you have evidence of deities, feel free to publish your evidence in a scientific journal and see whether the National Association of Science falls for it. If so, enjoy your Nobel; if not, have some crayons. Do not, under any circumstances, beleaguer me with your halfassed, makebelieved evidence of deities: look around; therefore: deities exist. It’s not funny; it’s not cute; it’s not evidence.
Of course, that’s just my opinion; swear to Dunhill.
← Antisemitism Aptitude →