Do not is true whether you can not or will not.
-
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!
Atheist by birth?
- Thread starter KovertKitty
- Start date
laffy_taffy
Member
Who says I am rejecting anything? If I had never heard of your god, I still would be without belief in him. There are hundreds of gods that I have no clue about, but I still have no belief in them. I don't have to know a thing about something to not have a belief in it. It wouldn't make sense to believe in something of which I was not even aware.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Yeah, and by that definition, "atheism" is equally applicable to you, a zygote, and a rock. Which makes it rather meaningless, don't you think?
I think the word 'atheist' is meaningless actually so yes it would be meaningless to label everything like that. In that sense it is really meaningless to say whether a baby believes in gods or monsters or supernatural cause they will likely not ever come across it in real life.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The whole notion of narrowly defining atheism as strictly a lack, absence, or rejection of belief ignores the contextual differences between how people generally use these different words, and that they aren't mutually exclusive or all-encompassing.
For instance, in my experience people generally say that atheism is a lack of belief in response to other people saying that atheism is a belief. In this context, they are saying that atheism is not a belief, but rather a "lack." Personally, I think this is because people often seem to be unaware of the implication of the word "lack," that something is deficient or needed. This is why, in such a case, I would respond that atheism is an "absence" of belief - i.e., it is not a belief.
Athesim can also be a rejection, but this would only apply to specific concepts that one has an awareness of. For instance, I do "reject" the man-made god concepts I have encountered, but this is not the sum total of my absence of belief in god concepts I have no awareness, or limited knowledge of.
At the end of the day, any of these narrow descriptions offer little insight into what any particular atheists position actually is, and arguing with them over the use of such limited phrases without taking into account context is a rather vapid exercise.
For example, my position on my being an atheist is that I cannot honestly claim to hold the belief that god(s) exist - the definition of god being somewhat variable, but ultimately, and broadly, describing some type of powerful entity which is responsible for the existence of the universe. Saying it's an absence, lack, or rejection of a belief offers no useful information about my position, other than in narrowly-defined contexts.
For instance, in my experience people generally say that atheism is a lack of belief in response to other people saying that atheism is a belief. In this context, they are saying that atheism is not a belief, but rather a "lack." Personally, I think this is because people often seem to be unaware of the implication of the word "lack," that something is deficient or needed. This is why, in such a case, I would respond that atheism is an "absence" of belief - i.e., it is not a belief.
Athesim can also be a rejection, but this would only apply to specific concepts that one has an awareness of. For instance, I do "reject" the man-made god concepts I have encountered, but this is not the sum total of my absence of belief in god concepts I have no awareness, or limited knowledge of.
At the end of the day, any of these narrow descriptions offer little insight into what any particular atheists position actually is, and arguing with them over the use of such limited phrases without taking into account context is a rather vapid exercise.
For example, my position on my being an atheist is that I cannot honestly claim to hold the belief that god(s) exist - the definition of god being somewhat variable, but ultimately, and broadly, describing some type of powerful entity which is responsible for the existence of the universe. Saying it's an absence, lack, or rejection of a belief offers no useful information about my position, other than in narrowly-defined contexts.
I did answer it --just put a little thought into it and you'll see.
laffy_taffy
Member
Hmm. So, I am born without a belief in (the existence of) god. At age 1, I still have no belief in (the existence of) god. At age 2, still no belief in (the existence of) god. Age 3, same thing. Age 4, same thing. Age 5, I am exposed to the concept from a song I learned in preschool. Thought we were singing about "got", not "god". All during this time I am considered to be "capable" of belief, but I am still without a belief in (the existence of) god. We move to the bible belt when I am 7 and I learn that many of my friends go to church and believe in this god thing, that I have no belief in. I even go to church with some of my friends on Sunday morning if I spent the night with them on a Saturday. Still no belief. I wanted to believe in this thing since all my friends seemed to and I wanted to be like my friends. Still no belief. At age 10, I first hear the word atheist and realize that there is a word to describe my state of non-belief. Etc, Etc....
During all of this time, I am considered to be "capable" of belief, right? So at what point am I rejecting god or asserting that god does not exist?
outhouse
Atheistically
why does reason and logic not apply to you.
im following the letter of the definition.
you admit to making your own definition up
It is a meaningless endeavour to hold a painfully obvious redundancy up as a flag around which to group a set of peoples and rally billboard support for them.
I just thank God that "atheist" means more to me than it does to those reveling in their redundancy.
At the point at which you become an atheist.
laffy_taffy
Member
Hmmm, I must have missed your post. Can you provide the post number where you answered the questions regarding what the difference is (if any) between someone who is an atheist vs. an unbeliever, non-believer, non-theist, etc. As well as how that makes any difference in everything that we've told you about us not having a belief in god?
That's not the question you'd asked --you'd asked about the difference in labelling.
However, I'll answer this question now.
An "atheist" is someone who rejects, denies or disclaims the existence of God. "Unbeliever" and a "non-believer" are monikers for a generalized group that don't believe in the same "god" that the group using the words do believe in. And a "non-theist" is a generalized group of people who are not theist, including atheists.
Last edited:
Your letting your theist perspective get in the way. If you don't believe in something there simply isn't anything to reject even an opinion of it.
Not at all --it is the atheist in me talking, saying these things, condemning fellow human beings who didn't pay enough attention in English class.
No belief is just that --no belief.
I think a page back or so I showed which definition of 'belief' fits for 'no belief' as far as babies or ignorant folk are concerned. Semantics I tell you.Not at all --it is the atheist in me talking, saying these things, condemning fellow human beings who didn't pay enough attention in English class.
No belief is just that --no belief.
edit: it was post 568
Last edited:
Whoa!... Rodney Dangerfield moment.
laffy_taffy
Member
If you are so nit-picky about "labeling" vs. "being" something, why do you define unbeliever and non-believer based on "monikers" that other people assign to these groups? The actual definitions don't even describe what you said, so why would you purposely include a definition that included "labeling" people, especially when you purposely said there was a difference between being labeled something vs. "being" something?
un·be·liev·er
   [uhn-bi-lee-ver]
Show IPA noun 1. a person who does not believe.
2. a person who does not accept any, or some particular, religious belief
non·be·liev·er
   [non-bi-lee-ver]
Show IPA noun a person who lacks belief or faith, as in God, a religion, an idea, or an undertaking.
Acceptance would mean someone tried to give you something.un·be·liev·er
   [uhn-bi-lee-ver]
noun 1. a person who does not believe.
2. a person who does not accept any, or some particular, religious belief
They argue there is nothing to lack as in lacking would be something that is needed or required.non·be·liev·er
   [non-bi-lee-ver]
noun a person who lacks belief or faith, as in God, a religion, an idea, or an undertaking.
Semantics or so fun!!!:thud: