"Atheist"--the term itself

[outhouse]

No one really cares whether babies are actually atheists or not.

It Is important to understand in some discussions however.


My daughter for example when born was an atheist, and she remained that way until she was 8.5 years old, at 9 now the last 6 months she now holds an agnostic position due to her mother forcing catholic schooling on here.

 

[Curious George]

Why do you think what he said was "nonsense"? I think it's a good point. We can't actively believe that God's we are unaware of don't exist. And atheism is a lack of belief in all gods/deities. So, merely lacking belief must be enough to be considered an atheist, don't you think?

I actively believe God's that I am not aware of do not exist.

 

[Curious George]

Default is the original, unchanged position. Later, the position might change due to education and brainwashing.

What's the default state of a book? Unopened. What's the default state of a child's God belief. Unbelief.

Speculation.

 

[Ouroboros]

Which atheists get to define it? The ones who believe God doesn't exist or the ones who just lack belief either way?

LOL! Good question. As far as most of these discussions go, it seems like the ones owning the label is the "lack of belief" atheists.

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't think this is fair. Babies being atheists is only being brought up to illustrate the general meaning of the term "atheist". No one really cares whether babies are actually atheists or not.

Says 15, and counting, pages of debate and hilarity. Some people are all too concerned that they be allowed to include babies(and/or toasters) in their atheistic ranks.

Is it really so much to say that one should be required to have the cognitive capacity to understand god concepts, at least minimally, to call them a theist or an atheist?

 

[outhouse]

Speculation.

Nope.

 

[outhouse]

Is it really so much to say that one should be required to have the cognitive capacity to understand god concepts, at least minimally, to call them a theist or an atheist?

People are hung up because if your not a theist, you are an atheist generally speaking. There is no unnamed default position here.


If one understands that implicit atheism means little and hardly can even be used in a conversation, one should have no problem accepting the definition of atheism.

 

[Curious George]

Oh, I understand, now. You can't deal with hypotheticals. No wonder. I won't bother you after this post.

Well, if you could understand hypotheticals, I would say that the issue is your belief or lack of belief in the God whether or not it exists.




Yeah, I can't help you understand the term if you insist that there's only atheists if The God they lack belief in actually exists.

If you were able to grasp the concept of belief versus disbelief, I would explain that the particular God is irrelevant. Your lack of belief determines your atheism.

Because I don't take your view, and I believe someone can lack belief in gods whether or not they actually exist or not just like someone can lack belief in Bigfoot, regardless of whether or not it actually exists, I think when a person lacks belief in a God, whether the person is a baby r the best theologian in the world, they are an atheist with regards to any gods they lack belief in.

Perhaps you need some help understanding. She is not saying that the god needs to exist such that they take up physical space, only that the god need to exist in a person's mind such that they can reference that concept. Though I am an atheist, that rejects the objective existence of a God, that God needs to exist in my mind in order for me to reject it. So when she says exist she is talking about exists in, at least, the same manner Darth Vader or some other characters exist. Now if you take away all ability to reference something then you are left with nothing. Nothing to accept, nothing to reject, nothing to believe, and nothing in which to lack belief.

You are trying to take a your perspective of another mind and then try to categorize that other mind in a way that implies the other mind references that which they cannot.

She understands your hypothetical. She might be pushing you to meet her part way with slightly esoteric language, but she understands.

 

[Curious George]

Nope.

Non sequitur. Lol.

 

[Curious George]

I would agree that inanimate objects and animals without the ability to ever ponder godness, can be neither. But mammals that have the ability to ponder a god at any time (some primates may at times be able to do this), either hold a belief in God or they don't hold a belief in God.

Then you are further defining the category based on logic. If we continue on this path, eventually we shall exclude all "weak atheists" both implicit and explicit.

 

[prometheus11]

Then you are further defining the category based on logic. If we continue on this path, eventually we shall exclude all "weak atheists" both implicit and explicit.

No. My definitions work fine as they are.

 

[leibowde84]

I actively believe God's that I am not aware of do not exist.

How is that possible without consideration of those Gods? Or is it merely a Dogmatic belief, in that you are adhering to the 1st Commandment?

 

[leibowde84]

Is it really so much to say that one should be required to have the cognitive capacity to understand god concepts, at least minimally, to call them a theist or an atheist?

Fairness has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't matter at all whether a baby or a toaster is considered to be an atheist.

 

[Curious George]

How is that possible without consideration of those Gods? Or is it merely a Dogmatic belief, in that you are adhering to the 1st Commandment?

Because if they don't fit my definition of God then they are not a God to me, now are they. If they are a God to me then I do not believe they exist. So any concept of which I am not aware will either not be a God and potentially exist, or be a God and not exist.

 

[Curious George]

No. My definitions work fine as they are.

Why do you think so? What is your reasoning for defining the category with personhood?

 

[leibowde84]

Because if they don't fit my definition of God then they are not a God to me, now are they. If they are a God to me then I do not believe they exist. So any concept of which I am not aware will either not be a God and potentially exist, or be a God and not exist.

You aren't aware of them, so there is no way for you to know these things. Maybe if you learned about them you might even abandon your current beliefs. Point is, anything is possible.

 

[Curious George]

You aren't aware of them, so there is no way for you to know these things. Maybe if you learned about them you might even abandon your current beliefs. Point is, anything is possible.

Yes, but I am only describing my current beliefs aren't I?

But have you not espoused that a person either has beliefs or they do not? What about alternatives of which you are unaware? So there is no way for you to know these things. It is silly, no? That's how your comment reads to me. I have a God construct. This God construct can change. My belief that no God exists can theoretically change. That really doesn't matter though.

My belief that no thing which fits my God construct objectively exists, is all that is required to be an atheist or as you call it, a strong atheist.

 

[Mister Emu]

If one understands that implicit atheism means little and hardly can even be used in a conversation, one should have no problem accepting the definition of atheism.

If one understands that a word is practically meaningless and useless perhaps we should consider its use at all? Especially, when its use appears to be solely based on the absurd.

The only valid use of implicit atheism I can conjure is the idea of a non-human intellectual civilization wherein the concept of God does not exist at all and therefore they are all cognitively bereft of the idea and are "implicit atheists". I'll refer back to the end of my last paragraph and add that if the best use of your word is describing hypothetical alien societies perhaps it is best shelved.

Fairness has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't matter at all whether a baby or a toaster is considered to be an atheist.

I didn't say anything fairness. I was just asking if it was so much to avoid the absurdity of claiming animals, babies and inanimate objects as atheists. If ridicule is what you are seeking, go for it, you'll get it in spades with that.

 

[psychoslice]

I myself don't see any confusion over the term atheism, it is what it is, its well defined, and I would say that it is defined even better than the labels of most religions, that can be very confusing.

 

[outhouse]

Especially, when its use appears to be solely based on the absurd.

That's just your opinion.

It can explain the evolution from atheism to theism in more detail then just the names themselves.

Example

My child fell under the definition of implicit atheism early on, she then became an explicit atheist, and now agnostic.


And I would not call how you describe your child as absurd, even if I disagreed. [ I know your not directly or indirectly] My daughter was born an atheist as no one taught her theism yet.

What you want to call your family if you have one, is solely up to you. I follow the encyclopedias definition and In my life is not absurd. It is part of reality.