Is it necessary to label? Suppose we never labeled anything or anybody?
-
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!
The default position...
- Thread starter Deathbydefault
- Start date
- Status
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Does it really matter? The term "atheist" is extremely broad, and applying it to a baby is no less labelling than calling them "apolitical", but I doubt that many people would ever object to people describing babies as apolitical, despite the fact that it is accurate to them for all the exact same reasons that atheism is.
We label some people theists because they started believing that god(s) exist at some point in their life. We label some people strong atheists because they started believing that god(s) don't exist at some point in their life. The rest haven't done anything to deserve a label have they?
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
It is not possible to be neither. If you are not theist, you are atheist.
It is possible to be neither, as both are positions held towards an object. One can take a step back from holding positions.
It maybe impossible if some other factors intervene.
What do you suppose, Artie? I'd like to know your thoughts.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Nope. It is not possible to be neither. If you don't hold a position - you are atheist.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You might need to know......if there is a position to hold.
if you are aware of the line drawn.....you can't really stand on the line.
but of course....when dealing with the topic of God...
you will throw in with believers.....or stand wherever you fell.
That's how I see it.
That "absence of belief" is ignorance, where this alleged (for them) "god" does not exist (is only implied). There is another "absence of belief" that refers to those who don't hold a belief about something they bloody well know others do hold a belief about.
You can't lack something that, to you, doesn't exist. Non-existents are not in the pool of things that people can lack--they are in no pool, because they don't exist (no existence, no pool) (and no, they don't lack a pool because of it).
If you're not A or -A, then you're -A. Good logic.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
but you can hold location.
If the living can exist ....and not know of God....
where do they go when they die?
Wait... what's official?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Then you are going to continue....in mind and heart?
Abso-fricken-lutely (except for the "you" part--just mind and heart).
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Well....if we go on....and our awareness remains intact....
Someone will be in Charge.
We have hierarchy is this life....
I suspect Greater Hierarchy in the next.
Being in charge (ownership) is illusion. While it's indulged, it is real. Surrendered, it vanishes.
And then there's a goldfish.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I am sure someone somewhere will always think they are in charge, even wherever memory of me goes.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Your construct of the "almighty" is part of you. There can be no you.
- Status