Bob the atheist?

[LuisDantas]

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!!!!!!!!

It is called "clarification" and you could use a better handle of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

That is an unnecessary and misleading premise for one to take, though.

 

[Thief]

That is an unnecessary and misleading premise for one to take, though.

I think she is moving in the right direction

let me help with reiteration.....

if you understand what belief is....and you say.... nay

you are a..... nay sayer......

by choice

 

[Thief]

It is called "clarification" and you could use a better handle of it.

I don't see that you do....

 

[idav]

I think she is moving in the right direction

let me help with reiteration.....

if you understand what belief is....and you say.... nay

you are a..... nay sayer......

by choice

Like with my example it's only possible to be theist once a god believer tells the person about god. Even then the person has to agree to believe in order to become theist. Yes atheism is saying no to theism, not like theists give much of a reason for atheists to change their mind. Most people are naysayers to anything we can't see but people like to make an exception for God for some reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Historically, the term "atheist" was used in contexts where:

- there was one predominant religion with one god-concept.
- religion was often ritual-based, where a person either participates or not; there is no middle ground.

(And as a corollary to the last point: it means that a baby wouldn't have a chance to "behave like an atheist" until the age where they were expected to actively participate in rituals).

... so historical usage isn't that useful now, where:

- we recognize that theists who reject a society's predominant god-concept but accept some other god-concept(s) aren't atheists.
- we acknowledge that many theist's religions emphasize faith and de-emphasize practice and ritual.

Unless we're going to insist that all atheists are unreasonable idiots, defining atheism in terms of rejection of deity became no longer possible once there stopped being a "default" societal god-concept to reject. Around the time we stopped calling the West "Christendom", we also undercut the idea that a person could become an atheist just by rejecting Christianity.

 

[Augustus]

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

It's entirely dependent on it, which is exactly why the lack of belief definition was created/popularised in the 1980s

From The Presumption of Athiesm (1984) by Anthony Flew:

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' It is too soon to attempt a full answer to this challenge and this suggestion. My justification for introducing the notion of negative atheism will be found in the whole development of the present chapter. Then in Chapter Two I intend to argue for a return to the original usage of the word 'agnosticism', as first introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley. In the meantime it should be sufficient to point out that, following the present degenerate usage, an agnostic is one who, having entertained the proposition that God exists, now claims not to know either that it is or that it is not true. To be in this ordinary sense an agnostic you have already to have conceded that there is, and that you have, a legitimate concept of God; such that, whether or not this concept does in fact have application, it theoretically could. But the atheist in my peculiar interpretation, unlike the atheist in the usual sense, has not as yet and as such conceded even this.

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"?

It wasn't my wording, just quoting. I'd prefer 'have their own subjective preferences which are frequently ideologically driven'.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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.

I can't be responsible for what you see or don't see. What I see is the theist crowd(not all theists, and not just here on RF, but a significant amount around the board over my long years) demanding special consideration for their beliefs. This matter is merely symptomatic.

Don't see how that follows, but okay.

I'm certainly no optometrist.

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.

The concept of holding a belief vs not holding a belief is as simple as simple gets, so it boils down to either stupidity or dishonesty. In either case asking for 'clarification' from a group of people that place their entire worldview atop specious 'reasoning'(I use this word in the loosest possible way) would be like asking the Sahara desert for a glass of water.


All that aside, on some level you must see the unadulterated hubris in telling people that identify as atheists what they actually believe.(or more properly, what they remain unconvinced of)

 

[Augustus]

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.

Given that a need for myth is the defining characteristic of humanity that separates us from other animals, I doubt it only applies to me.

By myth I really mean a fiction, a story not objectively true that helps us understand and gives meaning to the world we live in. I don't just mean people with magic hammers and talking snakes.

Religions are full of myths of course, but then again, so are all ideologies be they nationalism, humanism, communism or even unnamed worldviews that have only a single adherent.

 

[Quintessence]

Like with my example it's only possible to be theist once a god believer tells the person about god.

Is it? If we're talking about self-identification, then yes. A person isn't going to call themselves an (a)theist unless they know the words, though they could learn about those words from anyone who happens to know them.

If we're talking about others ascribing or attributing labels, then knowledge of the word or its meaning by the person being labeled is unnecessary. All we need is some particular standard for what (a)theism means. Then, study your subject, and determine which bin they fit in based on questions and responses. What the standards would look like might differ amongst researchers or persons, but in doing this, it's very, very possible to be an (a)theist as ascribed by someone else without the subject knowing about those words at all.

Most people are naysayers to anything we can't see but people like to make an exception for God for some reason.

Probably has to do with the historical usage of the term along with the historical behaviors of the dominant theistic religions of Western culture. When you have a religious culture that trends towards exclusivism, seems likely that by extension you're going to get this sort of thing happening. Heck, the dominant theisms of Western culture have had a tendency to call anyone who isn't the "right kind" of theist an "atheist." That was the historical usage, at any rate, though that has become somewhat less so nowadays... I still see it here and there, just like I still see the historical usage of the word "pagan" meaning "atheist" used here and there also.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's entirely dependent on it, which is exactly why the lack of belief definition was created/popularised in the 1980s

Wrong. You are confusing atheism with the social reaction to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's entirely dependent on it, which is exactly why the lack of belief definition was created/popularised in the 1980s

From The Presumption of Athiesm (1984) by Anthony Flew:

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively.

A person who actually subscribed to this definition would call someone who rejects "God" (with a capital G) but believes in other gods an atheist. Are you trying to tell us that before 1984, Pagans - for instance - were commonly considered atheists?

Apparently, even atheists could subscribe to the idea of normative monotheism... but why should we?

'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' It is too soon to attempt a full answer to this challenge and this suggestion.

But there are two reasons:
- agnosticism can't be a default, because it's a positive claim.
- agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given that a need for myth is the defining characteristic of humanity that separates us from other animals, I doubt it only applies to me.

By myth I really mean a fiction, a story not objectively true that helps us understand and gives meaning to the world we live in. I don't just mean people with magic hammers and talking snakes.

Religions are full of myths of course, but then again, so are all ideologies be they nationalism, humanism, communism or even unnamed worldviews that have only a single adherent.

Use of myth <> god-belief

 

[Augustus]

Wrong. You are confusing atheism with the social reaction to it.

What's confusing about the point that whether or not atheism is a 'default' position is entirely dependent on your definition of atheism?

 

[Quintessence]

I can't be responsible for what you see or don't see. What I see is the theist crowd(not all theists, and not just here on RF, but a significant amount around the board over my long years) demanding special consideration for their beliefs. This matter is merely symptomatic.

Could you clarify what you mean by "special consideration?" Are you sure this isn't people simply wanting to be understood by others? Since for a typical theist, their theism is important to understanding who and what they are, they would want that to be considered when getting to know them. For a typical non-theist on the other hand, this is not the case, so their non-theism needs little to no consideration when getting to know them.

I'm certainly no optometrist.

It would be helpful for you to explain your reasoning so I (and others) might better understand where you are coming from.

The concept of holding a belief vs not holding a belief is as simple as simple gets, so it boils down to either stupidity or dishonesty.

See the post I just made in response to idav for a wrench thrown into this. Seems to me the territory can be mapped whatever which way one wants, if one ignores self-identification and instead puts people in boxes based on a standard of what "theism" or "atheism" looks like.

All that aside, on some level you must see the unadulterated hubris in telling people that identify as atheists what they actually believe.(or more properly, what they remain unconvinced of)

I'd be careful of assuming hubris, but I agree that using standards other than self-identification are problematic, as said earlier. Hence I asked the question - does Bob actually call himself an atheist? If not, I would not label him as such.

 

[idav]

Is it? If we're talking about self-identification, then yes. A person isn't going to call themselves an (a)theist unless they know the words, though they could learn about those words from anyone who happens to know them.

If we're talking about others ascribing or attributing labels, then knowledge of the word or its meaning by the person being labeled is unnecessary. All we need is some particular standard for what (a)theism means. Then, study your subject, and determine which bin they fit in based on questions and responses. What the standards would look like might differ amongst researchers or persons, but in doing this, it's very, very possible to be an (a)theist as ascribed by someone else without the subject knowing about those words at all.



Probably has to do with the historical usage of the term along with the historical behaviors of the dominant theistic religions of Western culture. When you have a religious culture that trends towards exclusivism, seems likely that by extension you're going to get this sort of thing happening. Heck, the dominant theisms of Western culture have had a tendency to call anyone who isn't the "right kind" of theist an "atheist." That was the historical usage, at any rate, though that has become somewhat less so nowadays... I still see it here and there, just like I still see the historical usage of the word "pagan" meaning "atheist" used here and there also.

Ok however I didn't say you can't be atheist without the concept but that you can't be theist without the God concept.

Granted pagans can still be viewed as atheist. Many Christians will call everything not of their view, satanism and atheism, even though those ideas are mutually exclusive. If there should be different versions of God that are more provable the westerners aren't aware for the most part. I know cause I've talked to tons of Cristian's over here and more often than not they are blown away when I start spouting pantheistic ideas, unless they're a theologian or something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's confusing about the point that whether or not atheism is a 'default' position is entirely dependent on your definition of atheism?

And what's confusing about the point that your definition of atheism is dependent on whether you think:

- that atheism can be a reasonable position, and
- whethet one's own god-concept should be taken as some sort of "standard" god?

 

[Augustus]

A person who actually subscribed to this definition would call someone who rejects "God" (with a capital G) but believes in other gods an atheist. Are you trying to tell us that before 1984, Pagans - for instance - were commonly considered atheists?

Apparently, even atheists could subscribe to the idea of normative monotheism... but why should we?

But there are two reasons:
- agnosticism can't be a default, because it's a positive claim.
- agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.

The quote was to demonstrate that the 'lack of belief' definition was not in common usage prior to that period.

The rest is all subjective preference.

To me my atheism, and to you yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The quote was to demonstrate that the 'lack of belief' definition was not in common usage prior to that period.

And my point was that the "rejection" definition wasn't in common usage prior to that period either.

 

[Jumi]

Which religions are most widespread there?

Liberal and lapsed Christianity basically is majority, people go to church less than once a year and that statistic is kept up, because schoolchildren have to go to church a couple of times a year. Atheism has been gaining fast every time conservative Christians make political commentary. Islam is small and growing with immigration and population growth, but noticeable because you notice the veil and prayer hats. Sikhs are very rare, but I see them sometimes. Hare krishnas used to be the only religiously clothed people you would see and those rarely.