How do you define "Athesim"?

[Willamena]

Sorry, I was using theist in a very broad sense, including those who doen't believe in a personal god.

Why are you apologizing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's like the difference between not smoking and not being a smoker. Is a smoker a non-smoker when they're sleeping?

A smoker is a person with a smoking habit. Even if a person is not actively smoking, they can still have a smoking habit.

 

[Willamena]

A smoker is a person with a smoking habit. Even if a person is not actively smoking, they can still have a smoking habit.

Even if a person is not thinking about a god concept, they can still have a god concept.

 

[Tristesse]

Why are you apologizing?

I do that sometimes.

 

[Tristesse]

With that clarification, no. It's not possible to be theist or atheist in the absence of cognitive capacity to grasp a concept of God.

A newborn is no more an atheist than a theist, or a Republican. Neither is a rock.

I wasn't talking about new borns, because I think it was pretty obvious that a new born doesn't hold any beliefs, kind of goes without saying.

 

[Storm]

I wasn't talking about new borns, because I think it was pretty obvious that a new born doesn't hold any beliefs, kind of goes without saying.

Well, that was theme of all my recent posts here. Glad we agree for a change.

 

[Willamena]

I read a very good argument yesterday (in a book of philosophy called, "A Brief History of Thought" by Luc Ferry) that laid out the way (in Neitzschian manner) that people who believe in Democracy are firm theists.

 

[idav]

I read a very good argument yesterday (in a book of philosophy called, "A Brief History of Thought" by Luc Ferry) that laid out the way (in Neitzschian manner) that people who believe in Democracy are firm theists.

Well being subject to it isn't the same as agreeing with it.

 

[Willamena]

Well being subject to it isn't the same as agreeing with it.

Or believing in it.

 

[NIX]

eh. just lost my whole response.

short version- 'Atheism' is more of a 24/7 approach to/outlook on belief and non-belief. Black and white. You either do, or you don't. You either are, or you aren't. Period. This does not always paint an accurate picture of a person's reality.

 

[Willamena]

eh. just lost my whole response.

short version- 'Atheism' is more of a 24/7 approach to/outlook on belief and non-belief. Black and white. You either do, or you don't. You either are, or you aren't. Period. This does not always paint an accurate picture of a person's reality.

If it's not always accurate, how is it 'black and white'?

 

[NIX]

If it's not always accurate, how is it 'black and white'?

Atheism insists on black or white- this or that -even if the picture is both, neither, or a blend of the two.

It is a label that works only when it's adherents own only solid hats all of the same color.
Black, or White. 'believer' or 'non-believer'.

 

[outhouse]

It's like the difference between not smoking and not being a smoker. Is a smoker a non-smoker when they're sleeping?

I think you failed right there.


most all babies are non smokers less pathetic parents, or ones to close to the fire.

so generally speaking babies are non smokers, no prerequisite or knowledge needed of ciggy's

 

[Willamena]

Atheism insists on black or white- this or that -even if the picture is both, neither, or a blend of the two.

It is a label that works only when it's adherents own only solid hats all of the same color.
Black, or White. 'believer' or 'non-believer'.

So, atheism is a mask? I'm good with that.

 

[NIX]

What of the very occasional smoker? Bums a handful of cigs a year. Does this make them a smoker or a non-smoker?

 

[Willamena]

I think you failed right there.


most all babies are non smokers less pathetic parents, or ones to close to the fire.

so generally speaking babies are non smokers, no prerequisite or knowledge needed of ciggy's

You did miss the point.

 

[NIX]

I think you failed right there.


most all babies are non smokers less pathetic parents, or ones to close to the fire.

so generally speaking babies are non smokers, no prerequisite or knowledge needed of ciggy's

Babies breathe. Smokers smoke. *takes cig out of pack. puts between fingers. lights cigarette. puts cig to lips and sucks/draws smoke into mouth. Inhales sucked smoke. exhales smoke in a fine stream or makes rings. flicks ahses. repeats...*

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's the same for theism and atheism: they're MECE categories: every person belongs to exactly one of them.

That certainly isn't true for me, and I'm pretty sure that it's an indefensible position.

I've encountred people who seem a little confused by the forms of the words 'theist' and 'atheist'. They tend to see language as mathematical somehow, so they take the 'a-' prefix as a negative sign and assume that a theist and an atheist are somehow 'opposite' or that being one necessarily excudes the other.

But in my opinion language doesn't work that way. Maybe when writing computer code, but certainly not in the real world.

Can someone be both a liberal and a conservative at once? I'd say that's an easy thing to do. So I think a person can also be a theist and an atheist (and neither) at once.

I know that I myself can be both and neither at once. I consider the categories nonsensical and even unhealthy. In other words, the world would be a better place if people stopped using them.

Edit: Think of race. When I was young, it was very easy to tell White People from Black People. And there were consequences to that, all of them bad. But nowadays on the street, I see lots of people who are coffee-colored. It's a lot harder for either Whites or Blacks to hate coffee-colored people.


I'd like to see philosophical categories go the same way as racial categories.

 

[NIX]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin
It's the same for theism and atheism: they're MECE categories: every person belongs to exactly one of them.

Good luck with that.

 

[Magic Man]

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Strong atheism would be the belief that no gods exist.