Bob the atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is that us an atheist's perspective, but there is a flip side. From an atheist's point of view Bob is purely an atheist in his ignorance, but on the Thirst's point of view his ignorance will b pardoned, because it isn't a sin to not know.

Another possible theistic perspective: atheism in and of itself isn't a "sin" unless the atheist goes the extra step and denies whichever god(s) the religion in question cares about.

 

[happyo]

The word "atheist" means "without belief" not "believing the opposite of what a theist believes."

You are reading too much into it. There is a gray area a person who doesn't know and hasn't decided to not believe is possibly neither. They are simply innocent of sin and lacked understanding.

 

[Willamena]

The word "atheist" means "without belief" not "believing the opposite of what a theist believes."

It means "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of gods."

 

[Augustus]

The fact that you use "god" in the singular is still a giveaway even if you don't capitalize it. We aren't just talking about monotheistic god-concepts.

The word did not arise as the negation of theism though, but from people's attitude towards the gods.

Less of the cod psychology please. You're not very good at it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's what was given. It's customary to capitalize the first word in a sentence.

You really think your description that only applies to a narrow range of monotheistic god-concepts applies to all god-concepts in general?

Completeness shouldn't matter, as long as there is a sufficient sampling. If I were to explain sheep by example, I certainly wouldn't attempt to point at every particular sheep in the world. A sampling in a field should suffice.

As long as a person qualifies as a theist (and is therefore not an atheist) by accepting a single god-concept, completeness matters.

If we look at particular sheep in all the fields of the world, and the variety present, from mountain sheep to miniature ones, I'm sure we could confuse ourselves to pieces about the definition of "sheep," too. That's why there are set techniques for definition that rely on generalizing to a concept based on how the word is used.

The difference between gods and sheep, of course, is that whether an animal is a sheep doesn't depend on who owns it.

 

[Willamena]

Of course it isn't. Both the active disbeliever and the ignorant person are not theists. And that's what atheist means. Not theist.

The disbeliever is not ignorant and could not be, and the ignorant person is not disbelieving and could not be. To lump them as one concept is contradictory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Less of the cod psychology please. You're not very good at it.

My point still stands: your approach only works when limiting a single god or a limited pantheon. It has never meant "someone who rejects the existence of every god that humanity believes in."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The disbeliever is not ignorant and could not be, and the ignorant person is not disbelieving and could not be. To lump them as one concept is contradictory.

So then there are no atheists? All of us are ignorant of most of the gods humanity has ever believed in.

 

[happyo]

Another possible theistic perspective: atheism in and of itself isn't a "sin" unless the atheist goes the extra step and denies whichever god(s) the religion in question cares about.

That is specific to a certain religion, and true of most of the world basically if you are Lutheran not Catholic u go to hell but the Baptist says no we are right everyone else is doomed. So who is right? Jesus said we are accountable for our own actions. We don't go to hell for being a member of the wrong church, those churches are simply power seekers and the leaders will b held accountable for their own actions. Being an atheist is a sin, not understanding is not a sin. Just like being gay is a sin, but if you don't know it's a sin u aren't accountable. On the same note who does not sin? No one? Who is not ignorant of something? No one.

 

[Willamena]

You really think your description that only applies to a narrow range of monotheistic god-concepts applies to all god-concepts in general?

No, actually, I don't. The article I drew from discusses "god" in the context "the major religions." It makes that clear. If you want to draw definition from example, as you seem to want to do, then I'll leave that to you to garner what "god" means from a large sampling.

As long as a person qualifies as a theist (and is therefore not an atheist) by accepting a single god-concept, completeness matters.

Not really. The atheist qualifies by rejecting the concept, not by accepting the impossible.

The difference between gods and sheep, of course, is that whether an animal is a sheep doesn't depend on who owns it.

No difference for our discussion purposes.

 

[Willamena]

So then there are no atheists? All of us are ignorant of most of the gods humanity has ever believed in.

It's not necessary to include every sampling of all the sheep in all the fields. We can just include the one generalized sample of the sheep we've encountered in our brief lives.

 

[Willamena]

You're using a circular argument. What I and others are saying is that the word "atheist" doesn't only describe people who have rejected gods; it applies to anyone who hasn't accepted the existence of at least one god.

Rejecting means not accepting.

 

[ArtieE]

The word did not arise as the negation of theism though, but from people's attitude towards the gods.

People who play the 'meaning from letters' game always consider it a-theism rather than athe-ism, yet this is clearly wrong given the word's history.

-ism = belief or principle

a-the[os] -ism = the belief or principle of being without god.

The a-theism argument is simply a post hoc rationalisation of the newer meaning rather than the 'proof' of the newer meaning. If it means 'not theism', it is simply because people want it to mean 'not theism' rather than any intrinsic quality of the word itself.

If it was due to the letters themselves then it would always have meant 'not theism', even when nobody ever used it in that manner.

If a person tells me he's an atheist then I know for sure that he doesn't believe in the existence of gods because that is what characterizes all atheists. But you wouldn't accept him as an atheist unless he also actively believes gods don't exist? American Atheists aren't atheists according to you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

a-the[os] -ism = the belief or principle of being without god.

The prefix a- still negates in the Greek though.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

I am arguing that the modern meaning of "atheism" INCLUDES the original meaning, includes denial and rejection. Most of the atheists I know personally DO reject the idea of God, it is more than a mere absence of belief.

 

[Augustus]

My point still stands: your approach only works when limiting a single god or a limited pantheon. It has never meant "someone who rejects the existence of every god that humanity believes in."

Of course not. It has meant rejection of whatever they consider to be gods.

It is about belief, what you personally think about gods.

Just because someone considers the sun to be a god doesn't mean I have to. Just because I don't consider the sun to be a god, doesn't mean they can not. An individuals belief is the only thing that matters.

I disbelieve in ghosts. That doesn't mean I have to disbelieve in every ghost that humanity believes in. "But what about the grey lady of the woods? Have you considered her? And the headless man of the moors? What about Asian ghosts? Have you considered the pocong or kuntilanak? If you haven't then your disbelief in ghosts is racist!"

Belief is just belief after all.

 

[ArtieE]

It means "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of gods."

Yes that's what I said. Without belief is the same as lacks belief.

 

[Willamena]

Yes that's what I said. Without belief is the same as lacks belief.

Hence the contradiction. To me, lacks belief/without belief does not describe ignorance of god.

 

[ArtieE]

The disbeliever is not ignorant and could not be, and the ignorant person is not disbelieving and could not be. To lump them as one concept is contradictory.

Both are not theists. There's nothing contradictory about saying they are both not theists.

 

[Willamena]

Both are not theists. There's nothing contradictory about saying they are both not theists.

To me, atheism is athe-ism, not a-theism. That you don't recognize the contradiction doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hence the contradiction. To me, lacks belief/without belief does not describe ignorance of god.

So you mean that if somebody has no knowledge of God, then the theist/atheist dichotomy is inapplicable?