is it just me or am i seeing cernan's definition of atheism as my (and many others) way of viewing the world but with an unnecessary label attached to it?
Yes !
To be fair, he did not define atheism as such, but some vague glancing misrepresentation of cosmology and evolution/paleontology. In fact he failed to mention the single defining notion.
I would agree that the label is unnecessary if it were not for the sheer dominance and preeminence of religion. Atheism, for me, as a phrase should not really exist, we don't, after all, employ a unique phrase for people who don't believe in levitation or astrology or ghosts or water divination or telepathy or . . . (insert any number of magical / superstitious beliefs).
I certainly wouldn't define or describe myself as an 'a-theist' any more than I would describe myself as a 'a-astrologist'.
Yes !
To be fair, he did not define atheism as such, but some vague glancing misrepresentation of cosmology and evolution/paleontology. In fact he failed to mention the single defining notion.
I would agree that the label is unnecessary if it were not for the sheer dominance and preeminence of religion. Atheism, for me, as a phrase should not really exist, we don't, after all, employ a unique phrase for people who don't believe in levitation or astrology or ghosts or water divination or telepathy or . . . (insert any number of magical / superstitious beliefs).
I certainly wouldn't define or describe myself as an 'a-theist' any more than I would describe myself as a 'a-astrologist'.