Bob the atheist?

[ArtieE]

By not believing in gods.

And? Surely there must be more to it to qualify as an -ism?

 

[Willamena]

And? Surely there must be more to it to qualify as an -ism?

Nothing more.

Not believing in gods is the epistemological stance (i.e. the person disbelieving or failing to believe).

 

[Thief]

But like Bob, somebody might never have been introduced to the word theist, so there is no choice, just an absence of belief.

It's like Santa Claus, in some cultures children will not be told he exists, and will therefore not hold a belief in him.

'Bob' has been introduced as a head nodder
not one to make a choice

if you are able .....the choice will be made

it's part of being human

 

[Thief]

So?

sooooooooooooooooo
most people have made the choice
not in favor of disbelief

 

[Apologes]

"Nontheist is defined as covering a wide range of people, all characterized by lacking belief in any gods, rejecting of belief in gods, or deny the existence of any gods. The definition of nontheist is effectively the same as the definition of atheist — the prefixes "a-" and "non-" mean exactly the same thing. The label nontheist was created and continues to be used in order to avoid the negative baggage the comes with the label atheist due to the bigotry of so many Christians towards atheists.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines non-theist as "A person who is not a theist." This is the same as the broad, general definition of atheist, thus the two labels can be used interchangeably."
http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Nontheist.htm

.. your point?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So what if somebody told Bob about God, and he decided to become a theist?

 

[idav]

Only in a strictly and grossly ontological context. Athe-ism is an epistemological stance.

Not always, and only in the context of a world where theism is even a word, which I think is sort of unnecessary to have a stance otherwise your only atheist if you reject every theism known to man. Your atheist when it comes to any proposed god concepts but your just as much atheist for religions x in which x represents unknown religions. Or are you saying your only atheist for known god concepts but ignostic/agnostic for unknown, not yet introduced concepts.?

 

[LuisDantas]

sooooooooooooooooo
most people have made the choice
not in favor of disbelief

I don't know about that. Disbelief usually isn't even a choice. Often enough belief (in a deity's existence) isn't either, and it is rarely if ever something to pursue.

 

[Thief]

I don't know about that. Disbelief usually isn't even a choice. Often enough belief (in a deity's existence) isn't either, and it is rarely if ever something to pursue.

if you intend your pursuit to terminate in your grave.....your post is granted as is

 

[Willamena]

So what if somebody told Bob about God, and he decided to become a theist?

That would require belief, not a decision.

 

[Willamena]

Not always, and only in the context of a world where theism is even a word, which I think is sort of unnecessary to have a stance otherwise your only atheist if you reject every theism known to man. Your atheist when it comes to any proposed god concepts but your just as much atheist for religions x in which x represents unknown religions. Or are you saying your only atheist for known god concepts but ignostic/agnostic for unknown, not yet introduced concepts.?

You're not anything for unknown things. They only allegedly exist (i.e. effective don't exist).

 

[idav]

You're not anything for unknown things. They only allegedly exist (i.e. effective don't exist).

As if you would suddenly change your mind if an new religion or god concept were presented to you. I assume you would remain atheist. To the people of such an unknown religion it effectively does exist.

 

[Willamena]

As if you would suddenly change your mind if an new religion or god concept were presented to you. I assume you would remain atheist. To the people of such an unknown religion it effectively does exist.

Alleged people.

 

[idav]

Alleged people.

Sure, I just don't expect anybody to know and/or have considered the thousands of faces of gods and religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

if you intend your pursuit to terminate in your grave.....your post is granted as is

Is a logical link supposed to exist someplace there?

 

[Unification]

I wasn't sure exactly where to place this, but this seemed a good choice to allow for dissent, and it pertains to religion. So here goes, a thought experiment.


Bob is a simple man. So simple in fact, that he will take at face value anything and everything he is told.

Bob has never heard of religion(edit - or any concept of a god or gods, nice catch Quintessence.) Nobody has ever mentioned it to him, or told him their position on it. The concept is completely unknown to him.

Is Bob an atheist? Why or why not?


I will elaborate after 5 replies.(although forgive me if not immediately after, Ill be indisposed for several hours)

Bob is a human being with a mind void of unnecessary knowledge and an identity title. . because Bob is that simple and likely would have no need to argue fruitless unknown concepts that other human beings have a necessity to self identify with in fruitless complexity over the Internet.

Bob is wise.

 

[Acim]

I truly see Bob as actual atheist (without belief) and essentially all others as in a gray area. To me exceptions would be gnostic types, but that is debatable.

Theists (who profess a belief in a god or set of gods) are very likely to be pseudo atheistic when it comes to other gods. I think they'll denounce such entities (as not divine, or ungodly) and are in that gray area.
Atheists, who lack belief, but aren't actually without it, will enter into a rhetorical game whereby believers must clearly define all characteristics of god/s, plus must maintain consistency that stands up to all logical consistency, and ideally provide evidence so it is not seen only as 'blind faith.'

Yet, part of this (ongoing) debate has to do with the nature of existence itself. Santa Claus clearly EXISTS as a concept. I think people can describe SC, define characteristics of SC, and provide a logical consistency that distinguishes SC from say the Easter Bunny.

In my first reply to this thread, I said I'd want to know more about what Bob believes. But given way OP is worded, he would have zero concept of likes of Santa Claus and Easter Bunny. That's debatable, but I see both as treated similar to, if not same, as gods. Money can also be a person's god. So can their own parents. So can Life itself. So, arguably Bob has zero concept of all these things, and arguably has zero concept of anything. Again, all that is arguable, but I do honestly see it as aspect of the ongoing debate.

Then there is the belief aspect, and all that entails. If atheist (presumably without belief, or acceptance of God) enters a thread and says something along lines of, "why doesn't God end suffering, when He surely can," that would strike me as a belief about God this person holds. They may be lacking in overall full acceptance of that entity, but there is expressed belief in what this God can (surely) do and presumably what this God cannot, or will not. Bob, wouldn't engage (ever) in such a discussion, but some (so called) atheists do. And I see that as in gray area about beliefs in deities. If trying to be more accurate, I think theist types are around the 50 yard line (or more) in discussing their beliefs and understandings of God(s), whereas self proclaimed atheists are near their own end zone, and never care to venture past the 10 yard line if they can help it. If they do (with their words), I think they'll invoke the "I lack belief" card, and hope everyone respects that, to identify them as "without a belief in any deities, at all."

There's also the part of theists that are asking similar, if not the same questions, thus even theists are, at times, not fully accepting of their God(s). Theists, among themselves, can ask: Why doesn't God end suffering, when surely he can? And there are responses from theists that will be based on scripture, and on reason (philosophy). Another response that a theist type might give is "I don't know."

Yet, if we are playing hardball on this issue, if you have concept of deities, and are able to discuss what they can do, do do, can't do and such, you likely have beliefs. Those beliefs may amount to a non-acceptance, but hard to see those expressions of disbelief, or truly lacking (in belief of existence).

 

[McBell]

'Bob' has been introduced as a head nodder
not one to make a choice

if you are able .....the choice will be made

it's part of being human

What a load of ****.

Bob has been introduced as not knowing there is a choice.

Nice try though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not necessary to include every sampling of all the sheep in all the fields. We can just include the one generalized sample of the sheep we've encountered in our brief lives.

So... ignorance of gods isn't enough, but we don't have to consider any of the gods a person is ignorant of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When I say that I don't believe in god or fairies or Sasquatch, I mean that I believe they don't exist, i.e. in actuality. I can't say that if I've never heard of them.

Except that disbelieving in gods wouldn't be like disbelieving in Sasquatch; it would be like disbelieving in cryptozoological creatures generally.