Fundamentalist Atheists

[LuisDantas]

'Clarity' and 'accuracy' that fails to make sense.

To you, apparently. I will just have to accept that.

 

[LuisDantas]

The primary "use" it seems to have is to somehow paint atheism as a morally superior position by virtue of being some kind of "default," or more natural, state for human beings. It seems to be more of a misuse to me, not only of semantics, but also of reason and intent.

A default, sure. But it is hardly superior for that reason. Or a misuse.

See it as a criticism of the societal pressure towards theism if you will. It is a fair reading.

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite easily, in my opinion: in such a case, one could say that there are different kinds of atheism according to:

a. ignorance of concepts
b. non-sentience
c. lack of belief in a concept
d. active disbelief in a concept

The one who is d. may not feel happy sharing the same concept as an 'ignorant' a., and may feel as though a. is not a good enough term to describe his or her position.

Everything is possible, I suppose. I still fail to see why it would even qualify as a problem even if it happened.

 

[Falvlun]

Everything appears to be a big deal over the internetz. Even if it is not really so.

Good reality check. Frubals.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A child is even smart enough to realize that the tooth fairy is not real, but he doesn't do that with God, does he?
Same with santa, by the age of 8 or so they realize santa is not real, again, why doesn't the world around us support your reasoning?

The difference is that adults hold and communicate the belief that god actually exists. If adults actually held god to be a fairy tale, like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, and belief in god wasn't perpetuated as a reality via cultural, religious, and social structures beyond childhood, then most children would probably drop belief in god when they drop their beliefs in the other fairy tales they were presented with as children.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A default, sure. But it is hardly superior for that reason. Or a misuse.

See it as a criticism of the societal pressure towards theism if you will. It is a fair reading.

Oh, I understand the motivation, I just find it to be an intellectually disingenuous contention which offers nothing useful about the nature of either theism or atheism.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

The concept of the baby is a point that theism is created. If you truly are getting caught up on the baby being an atheist your missing the point.

Babies must be taught about organized learned to actually know about it. The reference to swine is nonbelievers. You cannot believe in an organized religion without it being taught to be true. It is heavily evidenced that if there is no one around to believe such a claim most people will not accept it. Relating to not teaching Roman mythology as truth. Given time and freedom of thought the child will view these organized religions as mythology.

Then if you believe that action compose definition rather than properties composing definition then you have to agree with me. An atheist actively disbelieves in the existence of deity. So since babies are not actively disbelieving or performing the action of being an atheist then they therefore cannot be atheist or theist for that matter.

exactly @Cynthia :yes:

 

[Falvlun]

Everyone should let their freak flag fly high.

But since we are changing the meaning of words around here, why can't I redefine atheist as to mean "a person ignorant of the existence of god" or as a "person lacking in the mental acuity needed to discern the spiritual"?

Works both ways you know.

I actually had a thread once asking if theists want to redefine theism as "the lack of the belief that gods don't exist." They didn't bite. The atheists weren't too happy with it either, for that matter.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But since we are changing the meaning of words around here, why can't I redefine atheist as to mean "a person ignorant of the existence of god" or as a "person lacking in the mental acuity needed to discern the spiritual"?

You certainly can. The question is whether you could defend such a definition -- whether you can integrate it into a worldview and argue for its sensibility.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

The difference is that adults hold and communicate the belief that god actually exists. If adults actually held god to be a fairy tale, like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, and belief in god wasn't perpetuated as a reality via cultural, religious, and social structures beyond childhood, then most children would probably drop belief in god when they drop their beliefs in the other fairy tales they were presented with as children.

Reaching for something that just isn't there.
You should get some data to back that up if you truly believe it and wish to prove something.
"if this that and the other thing" says a whole lot of nothing.
Sorry for my bluntness, I mean no offense.
I go by what I see in the world and not but what ifs, what ifs are emotional plea's and nothing more.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I actually had a thread once asking if theists want to redefine theism as "the lack of the belief that gods don't exist." They didn't bite. The atheists weren't too happy with it either, for that matter.

Maybe you could reword it as "the lack of the lack of belief in the existence of gods."

At the end of the day, I've never understood this consistent use of the word "lack" in regards to atheism. My non-belief in the existence of gods isn't lacking in any way. It seems most people seem to be unaware that a primary connotation or sense of the word "lack" is to be absent something that is needed or desirable, i.e., to lack something is to be deficient in something.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, I understand the motivation, I just find it to be an intellectually disingenuous contention which offers nothing useful about the nature of either theism or atheism.

If you say so. I can only puzzle why you would.

 

[yoda89]

The idea that a baby is atheist ranks up with Dawkins claiming that theists are atheists because we dont believe in "Thor" or other Gods.
Seriously?

Atheism is the firm believe that ALL Deities do not exist.
Not, "one God more than you"

Nonsense, a baby simply is not aware of anything yet.
Yes, Christ must be taught, why do you think God came to earth as a man?
Man was crooked and ignored Gods wishes.

Beliefs are neat. Cherish them but dont share them like they are the truth. Some people believe they are Napoleon. Thats great good for them.

Heres the basis of Christainity and its pearls of wisdom. An all knowing God creates man and woman with sin.That he already knows that they will commit. Then he impregnants a woman without sex so that he can be born. Once alive God kills himself as a sacrafice to himself to save us from the sin that he condemned us to that he already knew would happen. A meriful God punishing us for the sins that he knew would occur. So basically getting mad at humanity when in fact he knew what was going to happen. Thats just the basics.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Reaching for something that just isn't there.
You should get some data to back that up if you truly believe it and wish to prove something.
"if this that and the other thing" says a whole lot of nothing.
Sorry for my bluntness, I mean no offense.
I go by what I see in the world and not but what ifs, what ifs are emotional plea's and nothing more.

You're certainly entitled to the opinion that once children grew up they would continue to believe something that most adults hold as a fairy tale, but it certainly doesn't correspond with the reality that children stop believing in all other things currently presented to them as children, which are held as fairy tales by adults. Of course, you may know many adults who still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Personally, I don't.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Maybe you could reword it as "the lack of the lack of belief in the existence of gods."

Then atheism could be redefined as "the lack of the lack of the lack of belief in the existence of gods." And so on..ad infinitum.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Beliefs are neat. Cherish them but dont share them like they are the truth. Some people believe they are Napoleon. Thats great good for them.

Ill take pointless strawmaning for 200 Alex

Heres the basis of Christainity and its pearls of wisdom. An all knowing God creates man and woman with sin.That he already knows that they will commit. Then he impregnants a woman without sex so that he can be born. Once alive God kills himself as a sacrafice to himself to save us from the sin that he condemned us to that he already knew would happen. A meriful God punishing us for the sins that he knew would occur. So basically getting mad at humanity when in fact he knew what was going to happen. Thats just the basics.

Your not even close to being right, even I don't believe that.
Anytime you wish to actually discuss what millions of others think, lets gather them up and go at it.
We don't think for everyone else, we discuss who is here and what stance they take, well at least I do, I know I cant speak for the world.
Wish I had that ability, I would be super rich to be able to read that many minds.

Then atheism could be redefined as "the lack of the lack of the lack of belief in the existence of gods." And so on..ad infinitum.

Reminds me of a debate i had on that CEO Mozilla and the SSM thing.

A guy was trying to be (anti)anti-gay and I said no dude, you are pro-gay.
So what does that make me for disagreeing with you?
(pro)anti-gay or what?
I am pro gay if that helps you understand.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you say so. I can only puzzle why you would.

No puzzling necessary. Infants, like inanimate objects, are simply not capable of holding any beliefs, so pointing out and labeling one, specific belief they can't hold doesn't add any useful information about infants. Nor does it add any useful information about atheism or belief, since something that can't hold beliefs is logically exempt from the classification of holding/not holdling beliefs.

In other words, labeling an infant an atheist is logically equivalent to labeling a rock an atheist. As I've said before, some people may find calling rocks atheists to be a meaningful or useful exercise. Personally, I don't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In other words, labeling an infant an atheist is logically equivalent to labeling a rock an atheist. As I've said before, some people may find calling rocks atheists to be a meaningful or useful exercise. Personally, I don't.

It's like the Indian thing. If you can prove you're an Indian, you get a cut of the casino proceeds.

And if there's ever an incentive like that for my baby to be 'an atheist', I'll argue furiously that he's an atheist.

But until then, the question seems pretty irrelevant.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Then atheism could be redefined as "the lack of the lack of the lack of belief in the existence of gods." And so on..ad infinitum.

Indeed, semantics can turn into a mess very quickly, which is why we should just define things by what they are - most broadly, theism is the belief in the existence of god(s), and, most broadly, atheism is not holding that belief. This certainly doesn't speak to the complexity of the reality of why people are theists or atheists, but it is the most broadly sufficient starting point for defining what they are.

Of course, "not holding a belief" is only meaningful to an entity which is capable of holding beliefs in the first place. Thus, providing an easy and logical way of avoiding silly arguments such as rocks and infants being atheists.

 

[yoda89]

Then if you believe that action compose definition rather than properties composing definition then you have to agree with me. An atheist actively disbelieves in the existence of deity. So since babies are not actively disbelieving or performing the action of being an atheist then they therefore cannot be atheist or theist for that matter.

I think I had made this clear. Perhaps I was not clear enough. First of all this went way behind the children/baby comment. I posted it at least 5 times about people having to be taught about organized religion to think they have knowledge of it. Which is in turn your response to nonbelievers being swine. Babies cannot believe. Not believing in anything in that case a deity is atheism. If you disagree with the definition okay. However, it is a valid arguement.