Bob the atheist?

[McBell]

atheism is a choice

not a default position

so here we go again....pasting labels on the unintelligent

Yes.
Thank you for the demonstration.
It was quite revealing.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is a perfect microcosm of what I described. The thread itself is evidence of the OP.

Self evident. Does that make my thread an axiom?

To clarify, you will notice almost all the theists see 'atheist' as reactionary to their beliefs, while none of those that use the label to describe themselves see actually rejecting anything as important.

Didn't need to be Madame Cleo to predict that one.

Now why do you folks suppose that is?

 

[columbus]

"Didn't need to be Madame Cleo to predict thatone.

Now why do you folks suppose that is?"

Because it is the 347th similar RF thread since I joined 2 and a half years ago?
Tom

 

[1137]

to me atheism is nothing more than lacking a belief in any deity.
Thus Bob is an atheist.

Though I cannot help but wonder why theists are so concerned with who is and who is not atheist.
So concerned in fact,t hat they play all manner of semantics with the word.

We were asked an opinion question, I answered.

 

[1137]

Do you think of atheism as a necessarily reactive instance, then?

What would someone who never thought or cared about deities be?

Reactive? Why would that be implied? It simply tackles evidence and reason and forms an opinion on it.

That is a very sensible stance to have far as respect for self-identification goes.

But I don't think that clarifies much about what people actually are, and I don't think it attempts to answer the exact question asked in the OP, either.

By my reading, that question amounts to "Is someone who never learned or conceived of any deity an atheist?" and the only reasonable answer is "Yes, certainly".

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.

Are animals atheists? Are inanimate objects? Are forces of nature?

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

It's rejecting the idea that there is evidence or arguments supporting the existence of gods...

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.

We still have to differentiate between a rock and someone who investigates the reason/evidence and comes to reject the idea of god.

Then what is he?

Ignorant or apathetic.

This is a perfect microcosm of what I described. The thread itself is evidence of the OP.

Self evident. Does that make my thread an axiom?

To clarify, you will notice almost all the theists see 'atheist' as reactionary to their beliefs, while none of those that use the label to describe themselves see actually rejecting anything as important.

Didn't need to be Madame Cleo to predict that one.

Now why do you folks suppose that is?

I've seem this term "reactionary" or something similar several times. Where is this coming from? If you tell me the sun is purple, and I reject your claim based on evidence, am I just reacting to you, or rejecting your claim? What I've ACTUALLY seen here is a sad attempt to label one's metaphysical conclusions as a default position. Rocks have no knowledge of gods, but they aren't atheists. Bob isn't an atheist either, he's just ignorant. When we say Bob or a baby or a pet or a couch are atheists, we're saying atheism is just a mindless position of ignorance based on no reason and no consideration of evidence. Why do you try to promote your philosophy in such a way, and proudly no less?

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't see how Bob would qualify as an atheist. To me atheism implies logical thought, even if only a negative position. An atheist does not believe in god as they have found the arguments invalid, the evidence unacceptable and lacking.

Is that a practical definition, especially considering that theism relates to a god or gods? How much information would Bob need to have and how much consideration would he need to make? If someone just said “There’s a magic man in the sky who made everything” and Bob thinks that’s unlikely, is that enough to call him atheist? If Bob lived in ancient Greece and didn’t believe in any of the Greek pantheon but had still never heard the concept of any monotheistic god, is that enough to call him an atheist?

Also, there is nothing stopping Bob developing the idea of a god himself, without any outside influence. Just by living and experiencing the world, he will be developing an image of how it all works, if only subconsciously. He has the potential for theism even without any outside information or guidance (which differentiates him from inanimate objects like rocks). Until/unless he realises that potential, he is without belief in any gods – atheist.

I still isn’t anywhere close to the most important things to be said about Bob though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

People have different ideas about what "atheist" means, but the prefix a- generally negates, so I think that "not theist" captures the meaning well. This definition is really a spectrum, and I would say that Bob is on it.

 

[LuisDantas]

By reactive, I mean that atheism is only expressed when it is assumed that there could be theism instead.

Still, inanimate objects are if anything supremely atheistic exactly because they could not possibly be theistic.

Atheism is an absence, not a choice or even a rejection.

 

[ArtieE]

Are animals atheists? Are inanimate objects? Are forces of nature?

No.The definition of "theist" is "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/theist and the word "person" doesn't disappear from the definition of the word "theist" just because you put the prefix a- in front of it.

 

[Augustus]

The problem with the 'meaning from letters' line of argumentation is that the word is always assumed to be a-theism.

The word actually derives from a-theos, without god. It is athe(os)-ism, rather than a-theism. Like in an equation, which 'calculation' you apply first is important: (a+the)ism rather than a(the+ism).

-ism as a suffix generally (always?) relates to the presence of belief. Thus it becomes the belief/principle of being without god(s).

Then again this argument is just for fun because I don't believe you can decide upon meaning of a word based on an analysis of how its letters are used in other words. I don't even really believe the word itself carries a huge amount of meaning outwith the context in which it is used. The word in context has a plethora of meanings.

People don't simply walk around saying 'atheism!' ''atheism!', meaning really comes from the sentence level (or above), rather than the word level (or below).

Lenin's atheism is not Dawkins' atheism is not Bob's atheism.

The sentence 'Lenin subscribed to a virulent, aggressive form of atheism' makes clear sense to anyone who understands his political philosophy (even to those who insist on the 'lack of belief' only definition).

'Bob hasn't heard of god, so he is an atheist' also makes perfect sense (even if like me you consider atheism is a belief).

That's the beauty of language, with a relatively small number of symbols we can create entire worlds of meaning. This is because, in context, the referent of any given symbol is fluid and nuanced, not ossified and blunt.

 

[Augustus]

The only difference between him and me is that He doesn't have to learn mythology to figure out how people around him think and react to the world around him. . . I do.

Bob still needs to learn mythology to figure out people around him, the only difference is that it isn't mythology about gods. Life would be remarkably dull without the myths we all subscribe to, and we certainly wouldn't have any kind of society or culture.

 

[LuisDantas]

No.The definition of "theist" is "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/theist and the word "person" doesn't disappear from the definition of the word "theist" just because you put the prefix a- in front of it.

Except that the absence of theism is by definition atheism. The parallel with "non-smoker" applies.

There is no "a priori" reason why an atheism must be conceivably capable of being theistic.

Or to put it another way: an atheist does not need to be a person.

 

[Augustus]

Though I cannot help but wonder why theists are so concerned with who is and who is not atheist.
So concerned in fact,t hat they play all manner of semantics with the word.

Replace 'theists' with 'atheists' and it is equally true.

 

[Thief]

Usually not.

Wrong.

if you think atheism is a default position.....
you are equal to anything unaware of God as a possibility

the neighbor's cat
the bird the cat ate
the rotten tomato in the garbage can
the garbage can

oh....maybe you would like to up grade to the tree in your yard

 

[Thief]

People have different ideas about what "atheist" means, but the prefix a- generally negates, so I think that "not theist" captures the meaning well. This definition is really a spectrum, and I would say that Bob is on it.

you need to understand the word.....theist....
and then having made a choice not to believe.....THEN you apply the label of non-belief

 

[ArtieE]

The problem with the 'meaning from letters' line of argumentation is that the word is always assumed to be a-theism.

The word actually derives from a-theos, without god. It is athe(os)-ism, rather than a-theism. Like in an equation, which 'calculation' you apply first is important: (a+the)ism rather than a(the+ism).

-ism as a suffix generally (always?) relates to the presence of belief. Thus it becomes the belief/principle of being without god(s).

The definition of -ism is "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement." A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods. An atheist is a person who is not a theist. None of the definitions says anything about having to have a distinctive practice, system or philosophy. Just like you said yourself above: a-theos means simply without god and then you add -ism afterwards to make it seem like being without god is a belief.

 

[Thief]

So, you walk up to this guy Bob.....who nods his head to everything.....

Hey stupid!........you are an atheist!
he nods his head

Give me your money!
he gives you his money

You don't own a car anymore....give me the keys
you get the keys and the car

Hold this weapon.....and when the cops show up....shrug your shoulders
he goes to jail

I say.....if he is smart enough to say .....no....to any of the above
he is smart enough to understand the first line

 

[ArtieE]

Except that the absence of theism is by definition atheism. The parallel with "non-smoker" applies.

There is no "a priori" reason why an atheism must be conceivably capable of being theistic.

Or to put it another way: an atheist does not need to be a person.

So when the definition of theist is "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods" when you put "not" in front the "not" not only means "not a believer in the existence of God or gods" but also "not necessarily a person"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Replace 'theists' with 'atheists' and it is equally true.

No, it is not. Not by a long shot.

 

[Jumi]

I hear the Scandinavian countries come fairly close to that prescription.

It's going to change. I can't go outside and not see religious headgear. I hadn't seen anyone wear religious headgear 20 years ago. Better for me that I'm member here so I have some idea about what it means.