Atheist by birth?

[idav]

The term "weak atheism" was invented by a fellow named George H. Smith in the 70's. Before that, everyone knew what an atheist was, there was no such disagreement, no such debate.

Of course there wasn't a debate because god was just assumed to exist. There was no reason to ask, as if it were a silly question.

 

[Willamena]

when it comes down to it, your one of three choices. This covers all living people.

a theist
a agnostic
a atheist

Actually, that's two choices, and your forgot two:
both
neither

you dont make up the rules or change definitions because you dont like the outcome.

Neither do you.

 

[idav]

Actually, that's two choices, and your forgot two:
both
neither

Well I do find the idea of having to state you do not believe in something that doesn't exist rather redundant. Saying you don't believe once it is proposed to you doesn't change the existence of something unless our thoughts can create something into existence.

 

[Willamena]

We are all normal when we are born, just living life, not worried about anything but eating and sleeping, maybe playing with a mobile or sucking on our toes now and then. Then we grow up and get all ****** and have to say whether or not we believe in some stuff and listen to if someone else has the same view, hoping that they don't so we can argue about it.

The voice of reason.


Upside-down banana voice, but still...

 

[laffy_taffy]

The term "weak atheism" was invented by a fellow named George H. Smith in the 70's. Before that, everyone knew what an atheist was, there was no such disagreement, no such debate. The word had meaning. He thought this new term added something relevant to our modern society, bringing more people into the fold as it were. So my only question is, why is this a fold we want to be brought into? Or, more properly, according to some on these forums, sucked into?

I could run out and buy Smith's books, but my libertarian stance of being "just me" has served me well enough over the years. I'm not saying people shouldn't identify as weak atheist, or identify the baby as such, I'm just saying not all of us do. Not all of us can.

Is it the word "atheist" that you have a problem with? It doesn't change the fact that the same number of people still do not have a belief in god, whether you call them, atheists, unbelievers, non-believers, non-theists, etc. I don't know why the label seems to drive people crazy, into making it out to be more than it is.

Tell me, do you think there is a difference between someone who is labeled any of these other things (above) vs. being labeled an atheist?

If there is a difference, then:

1)what is that difference
2)how does that make any difference in everything that we've told you about us not having a belief in god?

 

[Willamena]

Is it the word "atheist" that you have a problem with? It doesn't change the fact that the same number of people still do not have a belief in god, whether you call them, atheists, unbelievers, non-believers, non-theists, etc. I don't know why the label seems to drive people crazy, into making it out to be more than it is.

Tell me, do you think there is a difference between someone who is labeled any of these other things (above) vs. being labeled an atheist?

If there is a difference, then:

1)what is that difference
2)how does that make any difference in everything that we've told you about us not having a belief in god?

Words actually do have meaning, they're not just labels. My argument isn't with a label, it's with people thinking that babies are atheists.

 

[idav]

Words actually do have meaning, they're not just labels. My argument isn't with a label, it's with people thinking that babies are atheists.

I thought you were saying that babies aren't atheists because they wouldn't label themselves as such. Your objection is us using a label we are familiar with on someone unfamiliar with it. Am I understanding your stance?

 

[idav]

Here is another problem.

Here is the definitions of 'believe' but for this thread I've been using the third option, in which case the opposite would be 'Not to have an opinion' or 'Not to think something'. When applying the other definitions, they only work for people who reject belief in god due to the semantics of the definitions.

1
a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

2
: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>

3
: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

 

[Storm]

Is it the word "atheist" that you have a problem with? It doesn't change the fact that the same number of people still do not have a belief in god, whether you call them, atheists, unbelievers, non-believers, non-theists, etc. I don't know why the label seems to drive people crazy, into making it out to be more than it is.

This wasn't addressed to me, but no. What I have a problem with is ascribing ANY theological stance to people (or things) incapable of forming one.

 

[Willamena]

I thought you were saying that babies aren't atheists because they wouldn't label themselves as such.

Nope. Maybe somebody else.

Am I understanding your stance?

The term "weak atheism" (or negative atheism) is rendered relatively meaningless when it:
1) represents a "lack of belief," which as I've already argued is ...a poor choice of words;
2) incorrectly, in my opinion, represents a negation of "the group that believes in God," which includes everyone outside that group --this is not its definition in any dictionary;
3) is held up as a place-holder for any old variety of position that holds the phrase, "not believe in the existence of deity," without regard to the intellectual, voluntary and sound decision-making process that went into the conclusion that is that belief.

 

[laffy_taffy]

Is it the word "atheist" that you have a problem with? It doesn't change the fact that the same number of people still do not have a belief in god, whether you call them, atheists, unbelievers, non-believers, non-theists, etc. I don't know why the label seems to drive people crazy, into making it out to be more than it is.

Tell me, do you think there is a difference between someone who is labeled any of these other things (above) vs. being labeled an atheist?

If there is a difference, then:

1)what is that difference
2)how does that make any difference in everything that we've told you about us not having a belief in god?

Words actually do have meaning, they're not just labels. My argument isn't with a label, it's with people thinking that babies are atheists.

Would you mind answering the rest of my post?

 

[Willamena]

Would you mind answering the rest of my post?

I think there's a difference between being labelled an atheist and being an atheist.

The difference between labels isn't important.

 

[laffy_taffy]

This wasn't addressed to me, but no. What I have a problem with is ascribing ANY theological stance to people (or things) incapable of forming one.

Being "without" something is a state of being, not a theological "stance." If you are without a particular (or any) belief, you are not putting forth any kind of claim or position.

 

[Storm]

Being "without" something is a state of being, not a theological "stance." If you are without a particular (or any) belief, you are not putting forth any kind of claim or position.

But you can't reject an idea you can't comprehend. Atheism is more than absence, it is rejection.

 

[idav]

But you can't reject an idea you can't comprehend. Atheism is more than absence, it is rejection.

It isn't about rejection or absence as much as it is about belief and whether you have it or not.

 

[Storm]

It isn't about rejection or absence as much as it is about belief and whether you have it or not.

I can go with that. By those terms, I'd say that it's only a meaningful term if restricted to those capable of belief.

ETA: IOW, it's just as silly to call a baby an atheist as it is a Hindu.

 

[laffy_taffy]

Would you mind answering the rest of my post?

I think there's a difference between being labelled an atheist and being an atheist.

The difference between labels isn't important.

I didn't ask whether or not you thought any differences were unimportant, I asked if you could answer the specific questions. I understand if you are unable to.

 

[idav]

IOW no opinion means no belief.

 

[idav]

I can go with that. By those terms, I'd say that it's only a meaningful term if restricted to those capable of belief.

ETA: IOW, it's just as silly to call a baby an atheist as it is a Hindu.

Well it is more silly to call a rock atheist than a baby but yeah, babies don't believe in lots of things.

 

[Storm]

Well it is more silly to call a rock atheist than a baby but yeah, babies don't believe in lots of things.

I don't think it is (which is why I used that example).

It's not simply that babies don't believe - it's that they CAN'T believe.