I don't understand what this means. You think logic is an inheritable trait, and impacts on the ability of a person to procure a mate and pass this trait on?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you sure you are an Atheist?
- Thread starter Nefelie
- Start date
I don't understand what this means. You think logic is an inheritable trait, and impacts on the ability of a person to procure a mate and pass this trait on?
No. I was referring to the strength of the fittest. That the strength of the logic of language will survive.
Hmm...survival of the fittest doesn't work that way though? Anyways...unimportant, and I dont want to derail, was just confused.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Does this mean we can no longer say babies are atheist since that is not "our atheism."
Curious George
Veteran Member
Stretching for internal consistency doesn't work too well...implicit atheism just doesn't hold up.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
You're one of the good kind. Atheist because you know it.
+100p.
Right. I'm behind ya' on that.
Agree.
It's actually more useful to ask: "What's the meaning of the word to you?" And go from there. Not dictating, "Nah! You're using the word wrong according to my holy dictionary, so you're wrong and have to change to fit my ideas, so I can then later tell you that you're wrong in the end."
That's what happens when someone tells a theist, "No, you can't define God THAT way! You have to define God THIS way, MY way, so in the end God doesn't exist, because that's how I want God to be defined!"
Basically, it's bad logic. Me dictating your definition only so I can get the upper hand to prove you wrong. ... but man, do I fall into the same trap repeatedly...
+1000p.
I've had dialogues with people who use words in the strangest ways, and yet I could make sense out of it. Everyone else asked me, "how can you talk to that guy? He doesn't make any sense!" But to me, I totally could read between the lines. The words doesn't make the concepts, but rather the combination and the context, or something. (I had some beer, so I probably don't make any sense right now.)
Well...more that trying to get universal agreement is pretty unlikely. I'm okay with calling babies implicit atheists, but implicit atheism and explicit atheism bare no relationship anyway, apart from a basic 'no theism'.
Ultimately the whole 'babies are atheists' argument seems weirdly semantic. Im not sure why anyone is too interested in recruiting pooping, dribbling buckets of pee on 'their team' anyway.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I hear ya'. We just trapped a HUGE rat in our kitchen (and released it in the park).
No. Self-identified is something a person identify him/herself to be. Babies don't have the ability to identify themselves.
You can identify them as such, but babies don't identify themselves.
There's a difference between you or me identifying someone else as something and the person identifying him/herself. Self-identify means that the person does it, not you or me. Hence "self-" in front of "-identify".
But it's not the self identifying it. My issue here is only that babies don't self-identify as anything.
I haven't seen any theist saying that. I have never suggested that atheists are pantheists. But I have experienced atheists saying that I'm "playing with words" to being a pantheist because my definition of "God" is wrong. It's not up to the atheist to decide the definition, is it?
Sure. We can disagree on the definitions, however, it's the theist who defines what God(s) they believe in.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Sure. It's different. I prefer to consider "implicit atheism" to be equal to "agnosticism", but that's me.
--edit:
Actually, I rather call them non-theists or undecided or something, but there's no reason (for me) to put them in a designated basket. And it's my SQL and null-pointer in C/C++ background. Null values are "not known value" or "undefined". Ternary logic.
I suggested last year that it's an attempt to bring in more to the fold, but it wasn't a very popular view.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
But why be okay with defining what someone else's form of atheism is? Your post to which I responded indicated that you were against this. If however we leave explicit atheism as atheism then when someone says a god exists is true...we say theist. When someone says a god exists is not true...we say atheist. And when someone says they don't know (or withold belief) we say agnostic. And lastly, when the conversation is not applicable...we just say it isn't applicable. Problem solved.
When we get someone insisting that a potato is god, we call them a theist because they believe god exists. We still maintain our own atheism, despite belief in the existence of the potato because...well we believe no god exists.
No equivocation follows, no labeling others contrary to their views, or without knowing whether they do or do not believe a god exists...all this is done based on an individuals understanding of god and whether or not that individual believes that definition exists or does not exist.
Because it's an argument without impact. If you tell me you don't consider babies as atheists, and then the next person tells me they do, it matters not at all to me. My next question to either of you would be 'So?'
To my mind, if someone says they worship a greater being, but consider themselves an atheist, I'm unwilling to simply say 'Okay, well, we all define our own terms'. I have my own opinion on what atheism entails, and what theism entails, and within this framework I will tend to group people. However, if someone is able to articulate their position, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, it enables clear communication, which is all that really matters, unless third parties are involved.
Define it however you like. My point is that for two people to communicate, they need only to understand each other's terms of reference. If you and I were talking, and you wanted to suggest babies fall into a 'not applicable' category, then I'd say fine. That is how I think about them from a practical point of view anyway. What generally frustrates me is the seeming need of many to have a semantic argument and then to WIN said semantic argument. It's a meaningless exercise. Babies makes no decisions, and any 'position' they hold is without merit, in terms of rationalism. To me, basically, there is no problem to solve.
Pretty much. We don't view the potato as a God, nor any other object.
Sort of true. Again, to me, it's understanding someones points of reference. They consider the potato a God, ergo I understand that they consider themselves a theist. What I consider them may or may not be the same, but I am willing to accept that they are a theist. But the semantic argument...the useless argument, which I really don't want to dedicate more words to...is that they are a theist because they view the potato as God. The absence of any such belief is atheism, if not neccessarily any sort of informed atheism. I'm Australian, regardless of my 'consent'.
I suggested in a different thread that it might be easier to just assign a label of 'animists' to babies and be done with it. I assume they think their stuffed rabbit has a soul. Who knows? Who cares?
Yup...put me in the 'Don't Care' bucket. I guess I see the same issue with agnostocism as with atheism. Agnostocism can be a considered philosophical position suggesting that knowledge of God is impossible. This is obviously not the babies view. But it's all good. I just figure we're a word short, or implicit atheism is the word. Either way. I get how 'Implicit atheism' can be seen as a means of 'winning' some sort of argument, although it's certainly not in my case.
Works for me. Semantically, I think they are implicit atheists, actually, but I'd kinda prefer I didn't. The description holds no value, and simply leads to circular discussions that add nothing to my worldview. BTW, I'm a SQL geek...ahem...
I suggested last year that it's an attempt to bring in more to the fold, but it wasn't a very popular view.
I think it can be, truth be told. It's kinda the atheist equivalent of theists saying 'You can't hear God because you are closed to Him' or something.
But there are a number of people on here who see babies as implicit atheists, and also hold my respect, so I'd prefer to say in SOME cases it could be a recruitment drive.
Curious George
Veteran Member
So, you are okay with dictating others beliefs, when doing such is clearly communicated? It just seemed for a moment that you didn't want to do such.
So, it is completely kosher to refer to someone as an atheist if the entity that they believe is a god isn't accepted as a god to the person making the reference?
**edit**
Hmmm let me try to clear up that last sentence: it is completely kosher for a person to refer to another as an atheist, if that person, making such a reference, doesn't accept the accept that other's god, as fitting within the definition of god?
Well, that may have made it worse, idk...you be the judge
Last edited:
Those two questions are independent. Just because a monotheist-centric position is too limited doesn't necessarily mean that your perspective should be viewed as correct.
Frankly, when you talk about "deifying" things, I'm not really sure what you mean. It seems like you're assuming an approach something like "anything I worship is a god to me" (is that correct?). I disagree with this, even though I certainly don't think that monotheism is the end-all and be-all of god-belief.
I'll try and answer, but honestly I'm not sure if I've understood your meaning. So apologies if I miss the mark, but I'm trying here...!! Just restate what you mean if I have misunderstood I guess.
Let's say you worship Earth, as some sort of Gaea type figure. To me, Earth is Earth, worthy of awe in some ways, but not something I would worship.
You would refer to yourself as a theist ( in this example, at least...). And so I would be fine with that. You worship Earth, you're a theist. Nevermind what MY opinion about Earth is.
A Christian is a theist, nevermind that I'm not 100% sure Jesus even existed, much less was both God and the Son of God. It is the person's belief and their worship which establishes them as theists, in simple terms.
But atheism is not theism. To me, that holds true in 2 different ways, actually;
1) The meaning of atheism, in a modern sense, is the absence of theism. More traditionally, it was related to the absence of certain forms of theism, but language evolves, as someone else here has mentioned.
2) There is a false equivalency in treating theism and atheism the same. If atheism is the lack of theism in people, then babies (by that definition) are atheists. To be a theist, I lay claim to some particular God belief. No atheist on Earth would think they have considered and rebutted every God belief.
Ultimately, this argument is (in my opinion) meaningless. I have seen it had on RF many times, and whilst I reluctantly would think babies are (in a purely semantic sense) atheists (ie. without theism) the simple fact is the argument is a complete sidetrack from anything that holds substance, meaning or worth. Babies are babies. They poo, they wee, they feed, they scream, they sleep and they don't give 2 hoots what we all think they technically are. They're babies. Overthinking it is completely redundant.
In which meaningful sense would implicit atheism be any different from non-theism? The former is a subset of the later, perhaps?
Marsh
Active Member
Alright, I see your point. I have a friend, former Catholic, who has for a number of years been -- what I call -- a New Age Buddhist. She's not really an atheist, more an agnostic, leaning toward theism. Wikipedia distinguishes between Unitarianism (a Christian religion) and Unitarian Universalism which includes atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, and others in the mix. I don't understand the draw either, but there are many kinds of us (humans). I'm just a plain old atheist, but many people, as you point out, (as evidenced on this forum) want to attach all sorts of other descriptors to the word atheist.
As is to be expected.
- Actual people have, of course, goals, values and aspirations and hope to express and be acknowledged for them.
- Atheism, in and of itself, does not have nor suggest any.
- There is a practical need to discourage misconceptions about people being some form of theists (in this stance including deism, pantheism, etc) since there is such a strong cultural bias towards presuming and expecting it.
All three circunstances exist at the same time, so it is only natural for many to feel the need to point out that they are indeed atheists, but that atheists is not all that they are.
Marsh
Active Member
What do you mean by "implicit atheism"? Is an implicit (suggested though not directly expressed) atheist someone who hasn't come out and claimed atheist status? I've many times been in situations where I've not expressed my atheism and those I'm chatting with just assume I'm a Christian.