Secret Chief
Degrow!
I would, for the same reasoning.Also, parents who baptize their babies refer to them as "christian babies" also.
Do you also complain about that?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I would, for the same reasoning.Also, parents who baptize their babies refer to them as "christian babies" also.
Do you also complain about that?
There is no such thing as a "lack".
You are claiming that nothing is something.
This is a fundamental problem with atheism as it is so often being expressed around here.
That no belief in gods should justify belief in no gods.
It seems to be only repeated by you.And so on. It's a fundamental logical incoherence that gets repeated over and over and over among atheists these days.
It is not a logical "default", nor even an honest one. The logical default is to reserve judgement until sufficient information becomes available.
An atheist believes the existence of everything can be explained by natural means, no matter how complex or appearance of design.
Some certainly do, but that is also something can't derive from the label "theism" as that is not what the label means either.A theist believes, among other things, there’s simply too much complexity, design, & functional interaction for there to be no intelligence behind it.
It has an impeccable track record of doing exactly that and I know of no alternative with at least an equal track record.And science isn't the deciding factor for what is or can be true or untrue.
LOL!!!!It's all guessing. But the scientism cult, like the religious zealots they abhor, can't accept that. They need to believe in a "higher power" that they can use to set them above their human fallibility.
You're right that the atheism of a baby doesn't matter much, but I find it illuminating to hear people explain why they freak out at a baby being called an atheist but won't bat an eye at them being referred to as, say, a civilian... even though a baby has put no more thought into their lack of enlistment than they have into their lack of belief in gods.To me this only underlines the absurdity of ascribing any form of label to a newborn child. A baby has no concept of God, philosophy, politics, culture, sport etc. You could argue that a baby is A-anything but what's the point? There's no significance to it and such terminology is meaningless.
No doubt another one of your special definitions that isn't useful in discourse. And do you clarify what I got wrong? Of course not, you just disagree to be rebellious.None of this has anything to do with the proper definition of a 'theist'.
More nonsense disagreement. You seem dedicated to not knowing a whole lot.Theism is not religion and religion is not theism. So none of this has anything to do with theism, or with those who profess an agreement with the theist proposition. But you will ignore this as always, and continue to complain about religion and religiosity wrongly thinking that it somehow discredits theism.
What is observed is that any indigenous gods are different from other cultures that have different types of gods. Notice no indigenous people in South and North America ever heard about Yahweh or Jesus until Europeans showed up, and then were killed off and forced to adopt the victor's God and traditions.If knowledge is the result of first hand direct experience. You have no say over this regarding other people.
If that was true you theists wouldn't be pushing back and reacting so emotionally. Apvarently believers are quite disturbed that atheists reject religious assumptions and concepts, and that atheists do quite well in life.Which means nothing to anyone but them.
Ironic, as this disdain of yours towards atheists is emotional, and as I noted, something that seems to disturb you. See how you attack any critical discourse about religion as being about ego? That suggests you want any criticism to end, and religions get free reign to spread their claims. Of course your story changes where it comes to far right wing religious-based politics. And you have chimed in against creationism, a religious view. So are you admitting your rejection of creationism, and right wing politics is about stroking your ego?Rejecting other people's idealized representations of God is really nothing more then ego-stroking as it has no effect whatever on anyone apart from stroking the atheist's ego.
Agreed. This issue seems to matter to a lot of believers, but to no skeptics. I don't care which definition believers use as long as it's not too restrictive, as when atheist is defined as somebody who positively asserts that gods don't exist, which is also a large fraction of believers. That definition would exclude agnostic atheists like me, who appear to be the majority.You're right that the atheism of a baby doesn't matter much, but I find it illuminating to hear people explain why they freak out at a baby being called an atheist but won't bat an eye at them being referred to as, say, a civilian
That's probably correct. Witnesses testified that the meatwad was resurrected and was seen floating to heaven. We know because Tim and Walter wrote about it, and those guys obviously wouldn't make it up or get it wrong. Furthermore, nobody can prove that it didn't happen.God stole your hamburger.
Not for you, but empiricism is the sole criterion for what constitutes correct ideas and knowledge about reality. Untethered thinkers will drift into fantasies that they believe, which is enough for them to call them truth, but that's a useless definition of truth - whatever somebody fervently believes absent confirmatory supportive evidence.science isn't the deciding factor for what is or can be true or untrue.
There is no such thing, but there are disgruntled soft thinkers angry that critical thinkers reject their insufficiently evidenced claims.the scientism cult
Like all words, theism and atheism are defined as their users choose to define them. Your definitions don't work for me. It doesn't matter that you don't like it, but it works for me to define atheism as the absence of a god belief and theism as the presence of one. One couldn't be more clear, concise or precise than that. But that doesn't serve your atheophobic agenda, so you've got some other formulation that is useless to me in which you call atheists liars for refusing to admit what you claim they believe and they deny believing. That's what works for you - a demeaning, straw man caricature that you can then call a cult.Theism is wrongly and sloppily defined that way by people who either want to obfuscate or are too lazy to bother being more precise.
That was in response to, "No gods are known to exist, and that is a truth that atheists acknowledge and respect." Sure he does, as do I. He's correct. No gods are known to exist. He knows of none, and I know of none. Others who claim that they know a god are not credible to the critical thinker, who brings his values, methods, and agenda to the matter of deciding what is true, not those of the faith-based thinker.If knowledge is the result of first hand direct experience. You have no say over this regarding other people.
Ego stroking? No. The atheist is telling you that he has no use for such ideas as god beliefs or religions.Rejecting other people's idealized representations of God is really nothing more then ego-stroking as it has no effect whatever on anyone apart from stroking the atheist's ego.
There are already several posters arifying what you're getting wrong. And that is that you definition defines nothing, and therefor everything. Toads are atheists. Trees are atheists. Anything that can't or won't think is an atheist. Because by your definition atheism is thoughtless, and pointless, and devoid of any intellectual substance or value. All these must be provided by the theist or the empty silence that results is "atheism".No doubt another one of your special definitions that isn't useful in discourse. And do you clarify what I got wrong? Of course not, you just disagree to be rebellious.
If that were the case, we could not communicate using words at all. "Murder is good because removing people that stand in the way of our attaining our desires is justice being served."Like all words, theism and atheism are defined as their users choose to define them.
Of course not. My definition eliminates all the biased baggage that you come here to throw around like a gorilla at the airport. Theism is simply a philosophical proposition. That's it. Theists are simply those folks who proclaim their agreement with the proposition. And atheism is the antithetical to that proposition. So atheists are simply those who assert their agreement with that antithetical proposition. That's it. No theology to fight about. No religion to mock. Just a simple philosophical proposition, and it's antithesis. And all that other 'baggage' is just a big fat distraction.Your definitions don't work for me.
There are already several posters arifying what you're getting wrong. And that is that you definition defines nothing, and therefor everything. Toads are atheists. Trees are atheists. Anything that can't or won't think is an atheist.
Because by your definition atheism is thoughtless, and pointless, and devoid of any intellectual substance or value.
All these must be provided by the theist or the empty silence that results is "atheism".
Why is "generally used" better in your mind than "specifically means"?The term "atheist" is generally used to describe people.
But atheists tell us ad nauseam that they have no belief. That's the whole point of this "atheism = unbelief" mantra that atheists refuse to let go of. If atheists have beliefs, they can be called on to defend them just as they call on all theists to defend their beliefs. But they know that they can't defend them. It's the whole reason why they adopted and refuse to let go of the "atheism = unbelief" mantra in the first place. They think it renders them immune to criticism while they can criticize theism and theists to their hearts content.Atheism itself, yes. The value comes from the belief systems that the atheists do have.
But it's the atheists themselves that are doing that ... defining themselves as an intellectual and moral vacuum just to avoid being called on to defend what they actually do believe. They've become addicted to that 'kangaroo court' going on in their minds.Sometimes I have to stand back in awe of the theistic arrogance and chauvinism needed for someone to declare, effectively, "the central feature of my belief system is so universally important that, for people who don't have it, its absence has to be the defining characteristic of their belief system."
Why is "generally used" better in your mind than "specifically means"?
But atheists tell us ad nauseam that they have no belief. That's the whole point of this "atheism = unbelief" mantra that atheists refuse to let go of.
If atheists have beliefs, they can be called on to defend them just as they call on all theists to defend their beliefs.
But they know that they can't defend them. It's the whole reason why they adopted and refuse to let go of the "atheism = unbelief" mantra in the first place. They think it renders them immune to criticism while they can criticize theism and theists to their hearts content.
But it's the atheists themselves that are doing that ... defining themselves as an intellectual and moral vacuum just to avoid being called on to defend what they actually do believe. They've become addicted to that 'kangaroo court' going on in their minds.
The problem is that you can't explain why you think my definition of atheism is wrong. While I can explain to you exactly why you're definition of atheism is wrong. So instead, you're tryng to run and hide behind "But Mom! ALL the kids are sayin' it!". And just as your mom would do, I am saying, "I don't care who all's saying it, it's STILL WRONG!"I was trying to use rhetoric to soften the fact that I was telling you that you're wrong, but if you're having trouble with this, I can be more direct: the term "atheist" specifically refers to people.
Beliefs are irrelevant. I don't know how many times or ways I can say that. Yet theists and atheists alike seem to want to insist that the debate is all about what they believe. And all I can do is just keep on ignoring this nonsense.Do you understand the difference between "atheism is not a belief" and "atheists do not hold a belief"?
I don't care a fig about their beliefs, nor do I care at all about yours. And I have no idea why you or anyone else would care about what anyone else believes or doesn't believe about anything. I am interested in what people THINK, not what they believe. And I want to know why they think as they do, if they can tell me. That's it. Belief is internal, and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.Every atheist I've ever talked to has beliefs. If you want them to defend their beliefs, ask them why they believe what they do, not what they don't.
I want to know what they think, and why they think it. But they are so busy trying to hide behind all the "unbelief" BS that they don't seem to be able to articuate what they really think, anymore.Again: if you want to argue atheists about their beliefs, engage with what they actually believe.
Right, a term with no content. Which is why it's both a stupid and a dishones defintion of the term.This will be different from atheist to atheist, because all you know from the term "atheist" is that whatever they believe in, gods aren't part of it.
That's incorrect. You and I don't need to define words alike to communicate. We only need to know what the other means when uses the word. I've already explained that to you with an example from contract bridge. Without getting into unnecessary detail, when I open one no-trump (1NT), I never have five or more hearts or spades. Others will make that bid holding five of either. A 1NT opening bid means something else to them. It doesn't matter that we mean different things by that bid, just that we know what the other means, that is, he has defined his terms to us.If that were the case, we could not communicate using words at all.
That's still incorrect. What you are told but don't seem to be able to conceptualize is that we have no god belief.atheists tell us ad nauseam that they have no belief.
That's not an example of redefining a word. You haven't defined murder at all. You seem to be assuming that we share a common definition of the word. You're making a moral judgment and an argument."Murder is good because removing people that stand in the way of our attaining our desires is justice being served."
Yes, and atheism is its complement. What's not a theist is a not-theist (a-theist). They form a MECE set (mutually exclusive/collectively exhaustive). Everybody is one or the other and nobody is both or neither.Theism is simply a philosophical proposition. That's it.
Nope. Atheists define themselves as those lacking a god belief, and are happy to explain the reasoning for that.But it's the atheists themselves that are doing that ... defining themselves as an intellectual and moral vacuum just to avoid being called on to defend what they actually do believe.
You're still frustrated that critical thinkers reject soft thinking. You seem to feel the need to express your disapproval using hyperbole. Why do you suppose that you do but that I don't? I don't care that you reject my way of thinking, and my prose is always even-tempered. I don't feel the need to call your thinking an addiction or your judgments a kangaroo court. I simply reject it dispassionately.They've become addicted to that 'kangaroo court' going on in their minds.
personally, as an atheist, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all the extra crap people claim atheism is.
What really gets my goat is the fact that it is not only theists who attach a bunch of extra crap...This^^^
Atheism is simple as a universal idea. Everything else is personal opinion, and has little to do with the single uniting principle
Aside from the not believing in any gods thing....What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?