Fundamentalist Atheists

[Thief]

Friend Thief,


Please show the way? to be empty.

Love & rgds

Indeed!
And many there are that attempt such a thing!

But you do see...I'm sure that you do....
We were born empty.
This life fills the spirit of what we become.

Now if you want your cup emptied.....that can be done.

'Fear not anyone that would harm the body....fear instead He who can rend the soul.
So I've seen it written.

You can be emptied.
But I think it will hurt.

 

[Willamena]

Why? Why can't we have something specific for that one thing?

Because we're talking about the concept of a deity. No concept, nothing to name.

 

[Willamena]

I also think that it was a shift based on the ability to more easily win debates.

An Internet shift. Kudos.

 

[Willamena]

It's not difficult to understand that "atheism" is also commonly understood as a positive position. This too is a simple concept.

The problem is not the difficulty of understanding, Luis. It's a philosophical disagreement.

Darn. I should have fruballed this post instead. Kudos again.

 

[Falvlun]

Hmm... No. Just no.
It has nothing to do with insufficiency.

What was the purpose of your question then? Was it just curiosity?

If it was just curiosity, if you want a label pertaining to belief of god's existence, then I think "non-theist" is rather appropriate.

 

[LuisDantas]

What was the purpose of your question then? Was it just curiosity?

If it was just curiosity, if you want a label pertaining to belief of god's existence, then I think "non-theist" is rather appropriate.

It is appropriate indeed.

Differentiating it from atheist, though... is at least arguably inappropriate. Actually using it when atheist would fit at least as well may be misleading and encourage prejudice that I personally would rather see challenged upfront.

 

[Willamena]

Differentiating it from atheist, though... is at least arguably inappropriate.

Why so, when, for at least a good portion of atheists, the words do mean something different?

 

[Falvlun]

I think that is exactly the point - by attempting to define atheism as a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the non existence of all conceptions of god, apologists make atheism a logically untenable position and hence it is easier to debate.

It is a simple device - you oblige your opponant to accept a definition that renders their position to be untenable.

It is simply shifting a burden of proof that theism iteself can not bear.

There is nothing logically untenable about believing that gods don't exist, or disbelieving in the existence of gods.

Note that neither claims absolute knowledge. While all knowledge is a form of belief, not all beliefs are considered knowledge, let alone "absolute knowledge".

From what I gather, you guys do find the arguments of the theists against atheism to be rather scary. Personally, I'd prefer to meet them upfront and honestly, rather than hiding behind a definition change.

 

[Falvlun]

The big deal which makes the label needed does exist, though. It is necessary to challenge the assumption that people are "believers unless proven otherwise".

You could also simply try educating people: "Hey, Mr. Theist. Not everyone believes in the existence of gods. Some people don't believe they exist because that is the conclusion they have arrived through careful consideration of the available information and evidence. Some people don't believe that gods exist because they have never considered the question at all. Some people don't believe that gods exist because they have never heard of gods. And some people haven't yet made up their minds as to whether gods exist or not."

Yeah, it might take a little more time and energy than simply re-defining a word, but I think it would be more fruitful in the long run.

 

[Falvlun]

Try the perception that we should not really put up with things that we used to.

In some ways it is a bit like feminism. People used to assume that women should not bother to vote, either.

I really don't see what is so nasty about people assuming that an atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of god. I mean, this really sounds like some serious self-loathing going on.

It is a claim which makes sense to me.

For those following, the claim being referenced is that the "atheist definition" debate is fueled by prejudice against atheists.

I noted that I oppose the "lack of" definition due to various lingual, psychological, and philosophical reasons, and not out of prejudice against atheists.

I never said that prejudice couldn't be a factor in the interest other people display for this debate. I was simply noting that it is not the only factor, and for me personally, it is not a factor in my disagreement at all.

 

[Falvlun]

I all honesty, my gut reflex is to feel that you must be kidding. The only evidence otherwise is the sheer insistence of you folks in these threads.

Yep. A weird one that should not even exist.

I gave you evidence in the form of all those dictionary entries, Luis. Defining atheism as a position, and not merely the lack of one, is the usual understanding of the word.... except upon internet forums.

Why don't you think that the disagreement should even exist?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For those following, the claim being referenced is that the "atheist definition" debate is fueled by prejudice against atheists.

I noted that I oppose the "lack of" definition due to various lingual, psychological, and philosophical reasons, and not out of prejudice against atheists.

I never said that prejudice couldn't be a factor in the interest other people display for this debate. I was simply noting that it is not the only factor, and for me personally, it is not a factor in my disagreement at all.

For whatever it might be worth, I really don't understand why the definition of 'atheist' seems so important to people. It's not like atheists actually exist out there, in the same way as apples seem to exist. I can be an atheist and a theist at the same time, despite claims that the two labels are necessary exclusive. A lot of people seem to get confused by that 'a-' prefix, thinking that it somehow forces the referent into one camp or the other. But I don't think so. I can be an intellectual and a shopper at the same time. And I can be a theist and an atheist at the same time.

They are not opposites. The labels just happen to resemble math symbols, which we are programmed to think of as opposites. But people can't be opposites, so it seems to me.

 

[Falvlun]

Our point exactly, Falvlun. Where do you think the notion that atheism must be justified comes from, if not the desire to more easily deal with those pesky atheists?

Personally, I wouldn't want to align myself with a position that wasn't justified. I think any position should have reason, evidence, and a solid rationale for it. It is completely alien to me that so many atheists don't think they need that, and actually feel that it makes their position stronger by doing away with it.

Note too: A definition doesn't force you to provide justification. Simply having the definition of atheism being "the belief that gods don't exist" doesn't force you to defend your belief.

If, in fact, you don't hold that belief, then you aren't an atheist. That's cool too. Nobody's forcing you to be one.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Another thing I've wondered about infants being atheists is are they also atheists as pre-born fetuses, embryos, and zygotes? Are sperm and unfertilized ova then also atheists? Does the act of fertilization result in one becoming an atheist, or does it take being born to become an atheist? What about a premature baby - are they automatically atheists, or are they only considered atheists once they reach their original estimated date of delivery? It seems to be a complex issue, and I'm wondering exactly what criteria is used to define when a human being becomes an atheist by default.

For myself, I never remember sincerely or meaningfully believing in the existence of a god, yet I would say that I became what I would call an "atheist" over a period of time during my teens and early-twenties which involved seeking out, reflecting on, and exploring various areas of knowledge, which ultimately resulted in the rationalist conclusion that belief in the existence of gods was unwarranted based on my findings, along with corrollary conclusions, such as that it seems clear, logical, and rational that gods and religions are adequately explained by vagaries of human sociology and psychology.

 

[steeltoes]

For whatever it might be worth, I really don't understand why the definition of 'atheist' seems so important to people. It's not like atheists actually exist out there, in the same way as apples seem to exist. I can be an atheist and a theist at the same time, despite claims that the two labels are necessary exclusive. A lot of people seem to get confused by that 'a-' prefix, thinking that it somehow forces the referent into one camp or the other. But I don't think so. I can be an intellectual and a shopper at the same time. And I can be a theist and an atheist at the same time.

They are not opposites. The labels just happen to resemble math symbols, which we are programmed to think of as opposites. But people can't be opposites, so it seems to me.

I really don't understand why the definition of 'atheist' seems so important to people as well. I can't be bothered to define "atheist" anymore than I can be bothered to define "God." Let theists define God and let whoever wants to define "atheist." This thread started out by bashing atheists and now it's getting bogged down with what is an atheist. If we could just go back to bashing atheists so as to keep this thread on topic we could then maybe have something worthwhile to discuss.

 

[Uberpod]

From Fox News Dictionary: Atheist - Those persons who hate God or refuse to believe in him for reasons other than hate.

 

[Falvlun]

For whatever it might be worth, I really don't understand why the definition of 'atheist' seems so important to people.

For me, it's not about the definition itself, but the effects it seems to be having upon the atheist community. A generation of atheists are growing up believing that they somehow haven't a position, but merely a lack of one, and therefore, no need (or knowledge of how) to defend it.

It's not like atheists actually exist out there, in the same way as apples seem to exist. I can be an atheist and a theist at the same time, despite claims that the two labels are necessary exclusive. A lot of people seem to get confused by that 'a-' prefix, thinking that it somehow forces the referent into one camp or the other. But I don't think so. I can be an intellectual and a shopper at the same time. And I can be a theist and an atheist at the same time.

They are not opposites. The labels just happen to resemble math symbols, which we are programmed to think of as opposites. But people can't be opposites, so it seems to me.

And that's a whole new philosophy all together. I think it has merits, but it's not in my nature to take it that far. At the end of the day, I like a few lines in the sand.

 

[Falvlun]

An Internet shift. Kudos.

Darn. I should have fruballed this post instead. Kudos again.

Thanks, Willa. You're too kind.

 

[Falvlun]

In the spirit of steeltoes' suggestion:

My favorite term for people in the more advanced stages of emotion based anti-theism is "Religiophobe".

And for anyone who appreciates irony, those people are a lot of fun to watch.

In the same way that some religious people make a mockery of the very precepts their respective religions are supposed to be based on---compassion, humility, truth --- all you have to do is read a few threads in here and you'll see a never-ending parade of religiophobes making just as big a mockery of their favorite slogans: logic, reason, honesty, . . .

They're wearing different jerseys but they're all playing the same game.

I think this is an astute observation. At the end of the day, we're only human. Our Us vs Them mentality tends to blind us to mistakes on our side, and magnify those on the other. So, we end up doing the same things that we revile in others; we just can't see it.

It's difficult to see problems when you are on "the Inside". I realized this in my deconversion from Christianity. Many things that made sense as a Christian fell apart upon scrutiny from a further distance-- on the Outside.

 

[Quagmire]

I really don't understand why the definition of 'atheist' seems so important to people as well. I can't be bothered to define "atheist" anymore than I can be bothered to define "God." Let theists define God and let whoever wants to define "atheist." This thread started out by bashing atheists and now it's getting bogged down with what is an atheist. If we could just go back to bashing atheists so as to keep this thread on topic we could then maybe have something worthwhile to discuss.

ie., if we could just go back to whining about imaginary bashing . . .

(psst, folks: you have to call it "bashing" because if you called it "persecution" the resemblance to fundamentalist religious people's whining would become even more obvious than it already is).