Bob the atheist?

[LuisDantas]

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

Were I defined by atheism, perhaps.

Atheism can hardly define anything or anyone, though.

 

[LuisDantas]

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"?

It is a matter of using logical thought. Atheism is an absence. It does not imply personhood.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Which religions are most widespread there?

 

[Thief]

Were I defined by atheism, perhaps.

Atheism can hardly define anything or anyone, though.

so.....use the word on anything at all....
ignore the definition

and that works for you?

 

[Thief]

It is a matter of using logical thought. Atheism is an absence. It does not imply personhood.

back to the alley cat....that doesn't believe in God

 

[Thief]

and the tree in your front yard

 

[ArtieE]

'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).

Atheism is a belief. But not being a theist doesn't require any belief. An atheist isn't a person who subscribes to the belief of atheism. An atheist is a person who is not a theist and some of those persons subscribe to the belief of strong atheism. (They believe there are no gods.)

 

[Augustus]

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

Would you at least concur that attempts to establish atheism as a 'default' position constitute caring about who is an atheist?

And that actively promoting a (then) atypical 'lack of belief' definition constitutes 'playing semantics'?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, this thread couldn't have gone any better. The light is shining right on the dishonesty and ignorance I was aiming it at.

In conclusion, I think the reason that there is such a clear cut divide here is that theists need atheists more than the converse. Defining 'atheist' as simply being unconvinced rather than being in denial takes some punching power away from some specific superstitious belief(or all gawd beliefs in general). When the entire substance of a thing is composed of blind faith, every little shred of legitimization helps.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

Historically, sure. The weird legal status of Catholicism in Canada is one indication of that: it was assumed that anyone who wasn't Protestant must be Catholic. Christianity (and only Western Christianity, at that) was taken as a given.

... but this isn't the world we live in now. Christianity is just another religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess in common usage people assume other people are not living in a bubble (like Bob) and anybody in modern western society is familiar with the two sides.

Even people who are familiar with both sides aren't in a position to reject the entirety of "god". I've had people give me descriptions of their gods that are completely incoherent; how can I reject what I can't even parse?

 

[Thief]

Well, this thread couldn't have gone any better. The light is shining right on the dishonesty and ignorance I was aiming it at.

In conclusion, I think the reason that there is such a clear cut divide here is that theists need atheists more than the converse. Defining 'atheist' as simply being unconvinced rather than being in denial takes some punching power away from some specific superstitious belief(or all gawd beliefs in general). When the entire substance of a thing is composed of blind faith, every little shred of legitimization helps.

on the contrary......we have atheists among us
and this is a religious forum

the motivation is obvious
under the guise of debate and civil discussion.......NAY SAYING!!!!!!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

- rejecting an argument is not the same thing as rejecting the argument's conclusion.

- suggesting that an atheist is someone who has evaluated arguments he hasn't even heard is just another way of implying that all atheists are fools.

 

[Willamena]

It is a matter of using logical thought. Atheism is an absence. It does not imply personhood.

It does, when the opposite of absence is taken to be presence.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Life would be remarkably dull . .

For you, maybe.

The implication suggests a series of blanket statements and judgements about all of humanity here. But it's entirely possible that opinion may only apply to you.

You're kind of proving my point here.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think so. An atheist is an atheist.

It was a Schrodinger's cat joke.

 

[LuisDantas]

so.....use the word on anything at all....

Anything that qualities (i.e. that is demonstrably not a theist), sure.

ignore the definition

You mean "take it into consideration"?

and that works for you?

Sure. Why would it not?

 

[Quintessence]

Well, this thread couldn't have gone any better. The light is shining right on the dishonesty and ignorance I was aiming it at.

I'm seeing neither of those things. Differences of opinion can be simply that, and it sounds like you are attributing some extraneous judgements here.

In conclusion, I think the reason that there is such a clear cut divide here is that theists need atheists more than the converse.

Don't see how that follows, but okay.

Defining 'atheist' as simply being unconvinced rather than being in denial takes some punching power away from some specific superstitious belief(or all gawd beliefs in general). When the entire substance of a thing is composed of blind faith, every little shred of legitimization helps.

I think you should probably ask some of the respondents in this thread for clarification rather than making these sorts of assumptions. Active listening is awesome. While you're at it, maybe do a study of the historical usage of terms like 'atheist' and how unusual some of the modern usages have become in contrast. Also might be worthwhile to ask whether or not a simplistic dichotomy like this makes much sense in the first place. Or not. Whatever floats your particular canoe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would you at least concur that attempts to establish atheism as a 'default' position constitute caring about who is an atheist?

Sure, but that does not touch on the definition of atheism itself.

And that actively promoting a (then) atypical 'lack of belief' definition constitutes 'playing semantics'?

Semantics is the discipline that deal with the meaning of words, certainly. What do you undertand by "playing"? Is it any different from "taking seriously"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

The "rejection" definitions imply that atheists are fools. I sometimes take issue with being insulted.