-
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!
Atheism does not exist
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
Incorrect. To be a theist is to believe that at least one god exists. Which one doesn't matter.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Incorrect. To be a theist is to refer to yourself as a theist or to agree when others call you a theist.
That's really all there is to it.
In other words, you can't make a person stop being a theist just because he doesn't fit your definition of 'theist.' I mean, you can stop him in your own personal brain, but that's the only place where he stops being a theist.
Yeah, this is pretty much my view. You might be able to use semantics to argue the opposite, but it's a pretty political way of thinking to be honest. I suppose people who say babies and rocks (for example) are atheists are trying to argue that religious thought is abnormal, and that atheism is the normal state of things.
But human history is not the same as the history of rocks, nor was it formed by babies. And human history would suggest that superstition and religious thought is actually the norm. Babies and rocks are obviously not theists, since they can't process the position, but I just class them as...I dunno...uncategorised. Or, in the case of rocks, as 'who cares'.
Otherwise, whilst the Pope is presumably a theist, his cassock, hat and underpants are atheists. It's an interesting insult to throw at him during his next service I guess.
I wasn't introduced to the idea of God until I was five so obviously I was an atheist until then. I don't know what it is you are trying to convince people of but it isn't working.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Though it does get theist undies in a bunch right quick...
I was introduced to the concept of God when I was 46. It wasn't until then that I became an atheist.
My atheism was an informed decision, not an accident.
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I think some (including maybe me) will argue that we are exposed or introduced to concepts whenever we hear the word used in a sentence. If someone says, "I think the idea of God speaking through a bush is nonsense,"... then we have been introduced to the concept of God.
It's hard for me to imagine that a person in the western world can reach the age of 46 without hearing the word 'God' used in a sentence. Are you saying that you heard the word but didn't get sermonized about the nature of God until 46?
This is intriguing to me. Do you have any further commentary?
Well, I was introduced to many caricatures of God before I was 46. The first, when I was 5, was literally that God was a guy up on a cloud in the sky, and this from an adult who was being serious. I was appaulled at how stupid that sounded.
As I grew older, and knew that couldn't be what people were actually investing belief in, talking with Catholic friends confirmed it. But I didn't still grasp it at that time.My parents used the word in sentences, but I just accepted that it was some part of the world. I didn't question the world as a kid.
Can one genuinely call oneself an atheist knowing that the concept of God you've been introduced to isn't grasped? I went termless for a while, and then called myself agnostic.
Edit: I adopted agnostic at a time when I had begun to explore mythology, because of an interest in Joseph Campbell through Bill Moyers' PBS series.
Last edited:
Yes. One will wonder whether there is such a thing as genuine Theism, I suppose. But it is no big deal to realize that you are not a believer yourself.
I wasn't talking about a geniune Atheism, so no need to get on a high horse about a genuine Theism.
I just don't see the point of artificially restricting the meaning of the word Atheism.
And some don't see the point of artificially broadening it.
Of course. But then again, that is just so plainly not being proposed here.
Its historical usage, its common usage, its usefulness and applicability all speak to atheism being an informed choice to take a stand against or contrasting to the view called theism.
Until and unless there is a view called theism, atheism isn't necessary.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Hey, all god concepts except my own are caricatures.
But i think that's still the majority concept of God among Americans. When Falvlun complains that we all actually have a good idea of the meaning of God, I think (s)he is talking about a Guy up above somewhere. A conscious being who actually exists somehow.
It's got nothing to do with my own God, but it does seem to still be the majority definition.
I call myself an atheistic prophet of God, but I don't believe in either atheists or prophets.
(I consider philosophical/theological labels to be the highest order of nonsense.)
But "nonsense" only speaks to what was given having not been grasped.
What's not being proposed?