• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fundamentalist Atheists

Falvlun

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Thief said:
Well...at some 'point'.....

In the list you made, you include persons not actively seeking a decision.

That would not be an atheist.
Click to expand...

My incredulity stems from the fact that if you had read any of my zillions of posts on this subject, you would be well aware that I support a definition of atheism that includes only those who acknowledge that they believe that gods don't exist (or disbelieve in the existence of gods).
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Falvlun said:
My incredulity stems from the fact that if you had read any of my zillions of posts on this subject, you would be well aware that I support a definition of atheism that includes only those who acknowledge that they believe that gods don't exist (or disbelieve in the existence of gods).
Click to expand...

Ahh!.....so the previous list does not include person of non-decision?
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
Why limit ourselves to only one definition of atheist while there are atheists that not only smell funny, but look funny too!
 
Triumphant_Loser

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
AmbiguousGuy said:
It should be illegal for atheists to fart upwind of any decent people.
Click to expand...

I don't think I would like decent people farting upwind of me either. Can we just make farting in public illegal. What a man and his bowels do in the privacy of his own house is no business of mine.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
Bunyip said:
Sure, and of course you cannot believe in something you are ignorant of - and are therefore atheist in regard to it.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what makes me an atheist because there are so many god concepts that I am unaware of. Personally, I don't do God, I leave that up to the theist, which again makes me unaware of what it is that makes me an atheist.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
steeltoes said:
I don't even know what makes me an atheist because there are so many god concepts that I am unaware of. Personally, I don't do God, I leave that up to the theist, which again makes me unaware of what it is that makes me an atheist.
Click to expand...

Atheism relates to a specific claim, a specific concept of god - that of theism, a personal interactive god.

Different conceptions of god are irrelevant, in the context of a discussion where the god in question is Yahweh. Christian apologists for example are not arguing for the existence of any conception of god, known or unknown - they are arguing for the existence of the one god, Yahweh. And so it is to that being that your atheism refers.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
Bunyip said:
Atheism relates to a specific claim, a specific concept of god - that of theism, a personal interactive god.

Different conceptions of god are irrelevant, in the context of a discussion where the god in question is Yahweh. Christian apologists for example are not arguing for the existence of any conception of god, known or unknown - they are arguing for the existence of the one god, Yahweh. And so it is to that being that your atheism refers.
Click to expand...


I've had no personal interaction with any god, Yahweh or anyone else. I have no idea what Christians are talking about when they start talking about God, I never understood them. I went to church for tens years and just could not understand any of it. Colour me ignorant.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
steeltoes said:
I've had no personal interaction with any god, Yahweh or anyone else. I have no idea what Christians are talking about when they start talking about God, I never understood them. I went to church for tens years and just could not understand any of it. Colour me ignorant.
Click to expand...

And of course you can't disprove the existence of an entity whose characteristics are not specifically defined.

The ancient gods I could understand, they made a kind of sense. They were super human, but still essentially human and represetative of different facets of life and nature. I agree - Yahweh is a far more abstract and difficult to define concept. More mysterious and other worldy. Beyond our understanding, rather than reflective of us as the Greek gods were.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
At this point I would still persist....it is a matter of decision and declaration.

Having taken the time to consider...and the choice made....the declaration follows.

There should be an obvious line drawn.

There is no gray shade of denial.
 
Last edited:
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
LuisDantas said:
It is a "negative", you know...
Click to expand...
No, it's just a negation. :) An ordinary, everyday negation of a posit that makes for an alternate posit--beliefs expressed as "there is god/gods," or "there is not god/gods."

LuisDantas said:
you really want to believe it is somehow a redefinition of the concept, don't you?
Click to expand...
No. I am perfectly accepting that a new context for the use of the word has entered our vocabulary about 30 years ago. My arguments have been because people seem reluctant to accept that there already was a definition and that it is still useful. The old use has not been replaced by the new use.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
LuisDantas said:
What irritates me is the assumption that beings who are not even capable of belief in God should somehow be "protected" from the qualifier of atheism.
Click to expand...
Because they cannot posit.

That makes the word "atheist" applied to them an impossibility, and I for one don't care for promoting impossibilities as reasonable.

Edit: To clarify, if someone said, "Babies are atheists," I would not bat an eye. But if that same person were to say, "Babies are atheists because they lack the capacity to believe," I would be obligated to protest the illogic.
 
Last edited:
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
No. I am perfectly accepting that a new context for the use of the word has entered our vocabulary about 30 years ago. My arguments have been because people seem reluctant to accept that there already was a definition and that it is still useful. The old use has not been replaced by the new use.
Click to expand...

I hope everyone understands that religion forums are extremely specialized places. Out in the world, when the average person thinks of an atheist, he's not putting a fine point on it. For him, an atheist is some guy who doesn't believe in God or lacks a belief in God or hates God or all of the above. If you asked him whether babies are atheists, he'd likely scratch his head, give you a weird look, and move on to the next piece of business.

That's my opinion of it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top