Bob the atheist?

[Quintessence]

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.

While I'm not sure about your characterization of the historical context, I agree that the historical usage is no longer useful. The modern usages don't strike me as useful either, however. As I've probably said before, terms "theist" and "atheist" on the whole don't strike me as useful descriptors. Defining oneself in the negative is particularly not useful, as it doesn't tell me anything about what the person is about. On the whole, really knowing what a person is about takes some pretty long conversations anyway, and isn't going to be distilled down into a word or two, yeah?

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Why make a clear-cut matter dubious?

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Which shows that social customs were biased. So?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 not sure if this is SSE's take on the issue, but here's one way that I see special treatment: when the "rejection" definition afficionados decide that someone is an atheist, they tend not to care at all what the person's opinion is of, say, Perkunas (the Baltic thunder god) but care deeply about their opinion of Yahweh or Allah.

In practice, the rejection approach means categorizing some gods as important and some as unimportant.

 

[Thief]

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.

my reason is cause and effect.
at the point of the beginning....that primordial singularity....
something (Someone) set all things in motion

substance requires a 'push'......so to speak

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I'm not sure about your characterization of the historical context, I agree that the historical usage is no longer useful. The modern usages don't strike me as useful either, however. As I've probably said before, terms "theist" and "atheist" on the whole don't strike me as useful descriptors. Defining oneself in the negative is particularly not useful, as it doesn't tell me anything about what the person is about. On the whole, really knowing what a person is about takes some pretty long conversations anyway, and isn't going to be distilled down into a word or two, yeah?

The same could be said about terms like "vegetarian": by itself, it tells you nothing about why a person doesn't eat meat, but it's a useful label in a context where lots of people do:

- "What are you having for dinner? The sirloin is excellent."
- "I'm a vegetarian."
- "Oh - in that case, I recommend the eggplant parmesan"

- "What church do you go to?"
- "None. I'm an atheist."
- "Okay - enjoy sleeping in on Sunday!"

 

[1137]

- 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.

I'm not the one trying to suggest that an atheist is a fool, you guys actually are. Apparently atheists can be equated to ignorant humans or even babies, since that's all the position requires. I, personally, reject this and see atheism as a philosophical position requiring as much thought as any other position. So which is it? Are atheists more comparable to babies or philosophical thinkers?

 

[ArtieE]

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

Before organisms evolved brains big enough to invent gods and subsequently started believing these gods existed or started believing these gods didn't exist organisms were neither theists nor strong atheists. Not being a theist/strong atheist was the default.

 

[LuisDantas]

While I'm not sure about your characterization of the historical context, I agree that the historical usage is no longer useful. The modern usages don't strike me as useful either, however. As I've probably said before, terms "theist" and "atheist" on the whole don't strike me as useful descriptors.

Not very informative in and of themselves, certainly. They both inherit an often-neglected vagueness that comes from the concept of deity itself.

Still, there is a point in using both. They state how people relate to their own god-conceptions, if any. Vague as it is, "theism" is a positive claim, and atheism is the clear absence of same.

Defining oneself in the negative is particularly not useful, as it doesn't tell me anything about what the person is about.

I quite agree. Even defining oneself as a theist, while a positive claim, says precious little about the person.

Still, surely the clear absence of theism deserves proper acknowledgement - and what other meaning should the word "atheism" have?

On the whole, really knowing what a person is about takes some pretty long conversations anyway, and isn't going to be distilled down into a word or two, yeah?

Indeed!

 

[Augustus]

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

Rejection of belief i.e. disbelief in gods was in common usage before then.

While there was undoubtedly a monotheistic bias, as reflected in the capital G in dictionaries, this is mainly due to the fact that the English language dictionaries reflect the dominant culture in English speaking society.

It doesn't mean that just because the G is capitalised in the dictionary that everybody considered Hindus or the ancient Greeks to be atheists. The word polytheism did exist you know, and some people were even smart enough to differentiate it from atheism (shock!). Others were less enlightened of course, but this is common knowledge.

The negative definition also predates 1984, it just wasn't in common usage.

 

[Quintessence]

The same could be said about terms like "vegetarian": by itself, it tells you nothing about why a person doesn't eat meat, but it's a useful label in a context where lots of people do:

- "What are you having for dinner? The sirloin is excellent."
- "I'm a vegetarian."
- "Oh - in that case, I recommend the eggplant parmesan"

- "What church do you go to?"
- "None. I'm an atheist."
- "Okay - enjoy sleeping in on Sunday!"

LOL... if only those conversations were always as respectful as your examples, right?

 

[Quintessence]

Still, surely the clear absence of theism deserves proper acknowledgement - and what other meaning should the word "atheism" have?

This reminds me of the time I've seen the term criticized around here on the grounds that we don't have a special word for not believing in the fae, so why bother having one for not believing in the gods? Don't agree with that criticism, but this reminds me of it.

Guess I just like it when conversations go beyond the simplicity of (a)theism, particularly given those terms are, unfortunately, rather divisive for some folks.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

My apologies, idav, I used (a)theism because I see the argument I presented as applying equally to both labels. That is to say, if we ignore self-identification and ascribe labels based on some particular standard of what theism or atheism looks like, one can call someone either of these regardless of the subject's familiarity with either of those terms or their meaning. Does what I wrote make a bit more sense with this clarification?

 

[columbus]

I'm not the one trying to suggest that an atheist is a fool, you guys actually are. Apparently atheists can be equated to ignorant humans or even babies, since that's all the position requires. I, personally, reject this and see atheism as a philosophical position requiring as much thought as any other position. So which is it? Are atheists more comparable to babies or philosophical thinkers?

This is why I would like two separate words to describe non-theists. There is an important distinction to make between a new born baby and an adult who finds theism unbelievable.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

Why make a clear-cut matter dubious?

What clear cut matter is being made dubious?

Which shows that social customs were biased. So?

The conversation was about people on both 'sides' choosing definitions based on subjective preferences that are often ideologically driven. That was an example to support the the point that people on both sides choose definitions based on subjective preferences that are often ideologically driven.

 

[ArtieE]

This is why I would like two separate words to describe non-theists. There is an important distinction to make between a new born baby and an adult who finds theism unbelievable.
Tom

We have "weak implicit atheism" and "strong atheism".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not the one trying to suggest that an atheist is a fool, you guys actually are. Apparently atheists can be equated to ignorant humans or even babies, since that's all the position requires. I, personally, reject this and see atheism as a philosophical position requiring as much thought as any other position. So which is it? Are atheists more comparable to babies or philosophical thinkers?

Rejecting arguments that you haven't even heard is not the mark of a "philosophical thinker".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rejection of belief i.e. disbelief in gods was in common usage before then.

While there was undoubtedly a monotheistic bias, as reflected in the capital G in dictionaries, this is mainly due to the fact that the English language dictionaries reflect the dominant culture in English speaking society.

It doesn't mean that just because the G is capitalised in the dictionary that everybody considered Hindus or the ancient Greeks to be atheists. The word polytheism did exist you know, and some people were even smart enough to differentiate it from atheism (shock!).

Exactly my point. Their usage of the term "atheism" did not reflect a definition of "rejection of God". We can tell because there were people who rejected God that they did not call atheists... which is a fact that you acknowledge.

 

[Augustus]

Exactly my point. Their usage of the term "atheism" did not reflect a definition of "rejection of God". We can tell because there were people who rejected God that they did not call atheists... which is a fact that you acknowledge.

Yes.

Some people used rejection of God and others rejection of gods.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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)

Yup. Bob is an implicit atheist.