Bob the atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would be more inclined to call him 'ignorant of the issue'. In my thinking, the term 'atheist' implies you have at least considered the concept.

How much does someone have to consider smoking before you can call him a non-smoker?

IMO, if he's never even considered any gods, then he can't possibly believe in any gods. And if he doesn't believe in any gods, then he meets the one and only requirement to be an atheist.

The person who has never even considered gods is even more clearly an atheist than a typical person.

 

[Sunstone]

Depends on which definition of atheism you're using.

Are you defining atheism as a lack of belief in deity? Then Bob's an atheist.

Are you defining atheism as a rejection of belief in deity? Then Bob's not an atheist.

Case closed. You're welcome.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you defining atheism as a rejection of belief in deity? Then Bob's not an atheist.

If you're defining atheism as a rejection of belief in deity, you have more fundamental problems.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, I can't help but find it odd that there are people who expect atheism to somehow "need" anything else than the mere absence of belief in deities.

 

[Sunstone]

If you're defining atheism as a rejection of belief in deity, you have more fundamental problems.

That may be so, but to define atheism as a rejection of belief in deity is one of the common ways of defining it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That may be so, but to define atheism as a rejection of belief in deity is one of the common ways of defining it.

It's common to hear people say that this is how they define it, but I've never encountered anyone who actually uses the word that way.

 

[Sunstone]

It's common to hear people say that this is how they define it, but I've never encountered anyone who actually uses the word that way.

Really? That's odd. I have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? That's odd. I have.

You've met people who, for instance, consider polytheists to be atheists?

 

[George-ananda]

How much does someone have to consider smoking before you can call him a non-smoker?

IMO, if he's never even considered any gods, then he can't possibly believe in any gods. And if he doesn't believe in any gods, then he meets the one and only requirement to be an atheist.

The person who has never even considered gods is even more clearly an atheist than a typical person.

I've seen this same debate multiple times on here. I don't know why people would care if Bob should be considered an atheist or not? I don't really. It is just a trivial semantic issue but perhaps I'm missing some important issue someone else sees.

 

[Sunstone]

You've met people who, for instance, consider polytheists to be atheists?

I've known people who think primarily in terms of the Abrahamic deities and consider themselves atheists because they reject those deities. They aren't all that religiously sophisticated in my opinion, but they do think of their atheism as an active rejection of deity.

 

[McBell]

If you do not know the concept of worshiping God, how could he be an atheist, as that requires knowledge of God, and a rejection of the notion of God.

Not until he met a religious person and rejected their concept of theism. Until then, Bob is just someone who doesn't know the difference. So I think "atheism" is a label someone has to give themselves.

Then what is he?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've seen this same debate multiple times on here. I don't know why people would care if Bob should be considered an atheist or not? I don't really. It is just a trivial semantic issue but perhaps I'm missing some important issue someone else sees.

It was important enough for you to weigh in on it.

For me, it leads into another issue: the assumption of monotheism as a default position.

Nobody could reject all god-concepts ever conceived by humanity, so when people talk about defining atheism in terms of rejection, the required process usually means rejecting some sort of narrowly-defined "standard" god-concept (typically, their own religion's god), and then make an exception for people who believe in "non-standard" god-concepts.

Under the "rejection" model, it's never the rejection of some fringe god that makes a person an atheist: when someone has rejected Thor but doesn't have an opinion about Yahweh, the "rejection" crowd never says that this rejection qualifies as atheism. OTOH, they're happy to call someone an atheist if they've rejected Yahweh and have no opinion about Thor. It's based on a double standard.

It also mischaracterizes the positions of people that are generally accepted as atheists... or at least conflates rejection of arguments for the rejection of the conclusions being argued. Plenty of atheists who have put significant thought into the issue hold a position something like "all of the arguments I've ever heard for gods are junk. If any gods do exist, it isn't for the reasons I've been given, and I ought not to accept a god-claim without good reason to do so." This isn't really rejection.

I also think a big part of the "rejection" definition is to paint atheists as unreasonable by implying that they jump to conclusions without evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've known people who think primarily in terms of the Abrahamic deities and consider themselves atheists because they reject those deities. They aren't all that religiously sophisticated in my opinion, but they do think of their atheism as an active rejection of deity.

In my experience, even these people accept that even if someone rejects their concept of "deity", if they believe in something else that they call a "god", they'll accept that this person is not an atheist.

IMO, these people also tend to assign negative characteristics to atheists: if a person isn't nasty and unpleasant, then they can't be an atheist.

 

[George-ananda]

It was important enough for you to weigh in on it.

Actually Bob the Builder image popped into my mind when I heard Bob the Atheist. That is what actually made me want to get in.

For me, it leads into another issue: the assumption of monotheism as a default position.

Nobody could reject all god-concepts ever conceived by humanity, so when people talk about defining atheism in terms of rejection, the required process usually means rejecting some sort of narrowly-defined "standard" god-concept (typically, their own religion's god), and then make an exception for people who believe in "non-standard" god-concepts.

Under the "rejection" model, it's never the rejection of some fringe god that makes a person an atheist: when someone has rejected Thor but doesn't have an opinion about Yahweh, the "rejection" crowd never says that this rejection qualifies as atheism. OTOH, they're happy to call someone an atheist if they've rejected Yahweh and have no opinion about Thor. It's based on a double standard.

It also mischaracterizes the positions of people that are generally accepted as atheists... or at least conflates rejection of arguments for the rejection of the conclusions being argued. Plenty of atheists who have put significant thought into the issue hold a position something like "all of the arguments I've ever heard for gods are junk. If any gods do exist, it isn't for the reasons I've been given, and I ought not to accept a god-claim without good reason to do so." This isn't really rejection.

I also think a big part of the "rejection" definition is to paint atheists as unreasonable by implying that they jump to conclusions without evidence.

I don't have a problem (for one of the first times ever) with what you say here. It is just that in western society the debate has traditionally been between the Abrahamic God and Atheism and that is how it has been typically viewed and not many people analyze the word atheist that thoroughly.

 

[Onyx]

Then what is he?

Some would label him an atheist by default, while others might label him a theist by default. But the labels would only apply to one's perception of Bob until he could decide for himself.

 

[McBell]

Some would label him an atheist by default, while others might label him a theist by default. But the labels would only apply to one's perception of Bob until he could decide for himself.

Except that labels are as subjective as the people who use them.
Since everyone uses labels, and everyone has their own spin for each label....

 

[McBell]

Except that labels are as subjective as the people who use them.
Since everyone uses labels, and everyone has their own spin for each label....

Thus the reason I flat out asked them what they would label the OP Bob.

 

[McBell]

sheesh
they really need to put the reply button and the edit button further apart....

 

[Quintessence]

If Bob was raised in a place where nobody talks about religion or deities, where is it and how can I get there.

Well, as alluded to in an earlier response I made towards Luis, they're already there. The territory has been there all along, all they have to do is build a map that has the words "religion" or "deity" stuck on it somewhere. If they want to. If the desire isn't there, they'll never do it. For some folks, the desire is never there.

Doesn't matter if it isn't. At the end of the day, the map drawn doesn't much matter compared to the territory. A so-called "irreligious" person can be doing exactly the same sorts of things as a so-called "religious" person, and a so-called "atheist" doing the exact same things as a so-called "theist" - it's the substance that matters more than the words people stick on it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I've seen this same debate multiple times on here. I don't know why people would care if Bob should be considered an atheist or not? I don't really. It is just a trivial semantic issue but perhaps I'm missing some important issue someone else sees.

I think it's a fairly important distinction myself. You have a word that is defined as the default position everyone holds before being convinced, vs a word that is defined as a reactionary position to X belief set.

The former is what the word actually means, while the latter is a slippery apologetic tactic for proselytizing.