Vedic definition of atheism

[Guest guest]

>> That's a good point. There is no need to buy into the atheists' own

>> definitions of themselves.

 

>I don't know who made those definitions. Could be theistic

>philosophers as well. After all, atheism comes only after theism,

>which it negates. If there is no idea of God, there can be no negation

>of it.

 

As far as I know term atheism was used before the term theism. I don't

remember were I read it. Of course the word "theos" was existing, but the

word atheist (in it's greek version) was used as a designation before theist

(in it's greek version) was used as a designation.

 

An any case, the history and etymology of the word is interesting. Here's

what they say on wikipedia:

 

-----

 

"In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos

"god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods". The word acquired

an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, expressing a total lack of

relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, godless, ungodly", with

more active connotations than aseb?s, "impious". Modern translations of

classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract

noun, there was also atheot?s: "atheism". Cicero transliterated atheos into

Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early

Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.

A.B. Drachmann (1922) notes:

 

Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek

derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not

consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotes; to these

the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In

exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe

censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that

can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain

philosophical creed. (p.5)

 

In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French

athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist in the sense of "one who denies or

disbelieves" actually predates atheism, being first attested in about 1571

(the phrase Italian atheoi is recorded as early as 1568). Atheist in the

sense of practical godlessness was first attested in 1577. The French word

is derived from athée, "godless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek

atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being

first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, with theism and deism

following in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Deism and theism exchanged

meanings around 1700 due to the influence of atheism. Deism was originally

used with a meaning comparable to today's theism, and vice-versa.

The Oxford English Dictionary also records an earlier irregular formation,

atheonism, dated from about 1534. The later and now obsolete words athean

and atheal are dated to 1611 and 1612, respectively.

 

-----

 

>Shouldn't the existence of God be taken as an axiom? Otherwise the

>debate is endless.

 

Well, sometimes, when an atheist would say that he would accept what

Prabhupada said, because he did'nt believe in God, Prabhupada would respond

to the atheist that no matter what the atheist believed it did'nt change the

fact that God actually existed. In his books Prabhupada many used this

strategy when responding to non-believers in the law of karma. He would

simply state that no matter what they believed, the law of karma would act

on them. So sometimes Prabhupada used the existence of God and the law of

karma as axioms.

 

Other times he would be more tolerant and slowly bring a person to first

accept that there exists some higher laws by which we are controlled, and

then from there to a personal God.

 

It all depended on the context. I would say that the first strategy can be

very usefull when dealing with fanatical atheists, demons. You just tell

them what the truth is and you don't make any comprimises. But if you have a

person willing to listen you can use the second strategy.

 

Also sometimes people think we are very fanatical and closed minded if we

just come out stating what we think is the absolute truth without even

caring for their opinion on the matter. So I personally usually try the

second strategy first, but sometimes also the first, depending on time,

place and circumstances.

 

>> We don't attack their definitions because then we are drawn into

>> debate on their terms. I have been debating atheist on the internet

>> since 96, and I can tell you for sure that their main aim is to

>> waste your time.

 

I don't really think they can be accused of used wrong definitions - except

they don't know that they actually rejected Krishna. They knew Him, and

then they rejected Him. But since they don't remember, they often think that

everyone starts as an atheist - when they are born - and then later maybe

becomes theist. Thus they consider atheism as the default position.

 

>Therefore I focus on preaching to open-minded people who use their

>ears and brain more often.

 

That's the best. I just had a big desire to really take the worst demons and

their arguments and smash them to pieces. Therefore I took the direct

confrontation with them. I somehow felt, maybe to a large degree

unconsciously, that I needed to confront the people and their argument. I

think I did it to test my own strenght and the strenght of our philosophy. I

was very happy I did it, because know I really feel that nothing can

challenge our philosophy.

 

Ys, AKD