What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

[Secret Chief]

Also, parents who baptize their babies refer to them as "christian babies" also.
Do you also complain about that?

I would, for the same reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no such thing as a "lack".

Off course there is.
You, for example, lack belief in scientology.

You are claiming that nothing is something.

Nope. Just labeling the "nothing" with the prefix "a".

This is a fundamental problem with atheism as it is so often being expressed around here.

Not so much a "fundamental problem" with the label as it is a semantic brainfart in your head.

That no belief in gods should justify belief in no gods.

You just changed the definition.
Those two are not the same thing.

And so on. It's a fundamental logical incoherence that gets repeated over and over and over among atheists these days.

It seems to be only repeated by you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not a logical "default", nor even an honest one. The logical default is to reserve judgement until sufficient information becomes available.

IOW: to not believe until sufficient reason to believe is provided.
Indeed.

And what do we call that "not believing" when it concerns theistic claims again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An atheist believes the existence of everything can be explained by natural means, no matter how complex or appearance of design.

Some or perhaps most do, but you can't derive that from the label "atheism" as that is not what the label means.

A theist believes, among other things, there’s simply too much complexity, design, & functional interaction for there to be no intelligence behind it.

Some certainly do, but that is also something can't derive from the label "theism" as that is not what the label means either.

You're wrong on both counts

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And science isn't the deciding factor for what is or can be true or untrue.

It has an impeccable track record of doing exactly that and I know of no alternative with at least an equal track record.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

LOL!!!!

So now, when one disagrees that science is mere "guessing", one is also "guilty" of "scientism"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

I think a lot of it comes down to one of two factors:

• A lot of theists need atheism to be something culpable - an overt act of rebellion against God - in order for God to be justified in punishing adult atheists... but a newborn baby obviously hasn't done anything wrong.
• A lot of theists have a negative image of an atheist. To them, an atheist is someone like Richard Dawkins or Madalynn Murray O'Hair. They dislike both of those people and like babies, so their archetype of an atheist just doesn't fit.

... so I agree that the atheism of babies doesn't really matter, but the debate about it can be illuminating.

 

[F1fan]

None of this has anything to do with the proper definition of a 'theist'.

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.

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.

More nonsense disagreement. You seem dedicated to not knowing a whole lot.

If knowledge is the result of first hand direct experience. You have no say over this regarding other people.

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.

No one claims to have direct experiences with Jesus until they've heard about Jesus from other people FIRST. That suggests a social and psychological process, not "first hand direct exprience". If you disagree, explain. If you can't explain why you disagree, then don't bother, because we don't care that you disagree.

Which means nothing to anyone but them.

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.

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.

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?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

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.

So what motivates that? I can only think of one thing that it might be - to keep the apparent size of the degree of rejection of Christianity appearing as small as possible with the idea that it helps to keep atheists and atheism seem appear to be as anomalous and outside of the mainstream as they likely were a century or two ago.

God stole your hamburger.

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.

science isn't the deciding factor for what is or can be true or untrue.

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.

the scientism cult

There is no such thing, but there are disgruntled soft thinkers angry that critical thinkers reject their insufficiently evidenced claims.

Theism is wrongly and sloppily defined that way by people who either want to obfuscate or are too lazy to bother being more precise.

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.

If knowledge is the result of first hand direct experience. You have no say over this regarding other people.

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.

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.

Ego stroking? No. The atheist is telling you that he has no use for such ideas as god beliefs or religions.

But I have to admit that being an atheistic humanist is a point of pride for me. I went through most of life without the burden of theism and religion. How is it possibly better to want or need either of those? I don't begrudge it to those who do, just as I don't begrudge people with blurred vision corrective glasses if that helps them navigate life, but I don't envy them. I prefer being able to see clearly without them. Would you call that attitude ego stroking as well? I reject gods as well as glasses for the same reason, and that includes the gods of others.

This also seems to be a sore spot for many believers - being disbelieved when they report experiencing gods or possessing spiritual truth. They often get visibly angry at being told that. I wonder why that is? The skeptics don't get angry at being disbelieved. What accounts for that asymmetry? Does thinking by faith promote emotional volatility? Or maybe believers teach one another to see dissent as attack. Abrahamic doctrine depicts atheists as immoral, mean-spirited, rebellious, wantonly hedonistic, god-haters, and fit for gratuitous torment forever. Maybe that's why so many believers have these angry, demeaning reactions, especially in the face of the ominous rise of the nones and the normalizing of atheism in Western culture. They're not used to unbelievers having a voice or writing and speaking so bluntly about their religions.

 

[PureX]

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.

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".

 

[PureX]

Like all words, theism and atheism are defined as their users choose to define them.

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."

Your definitions don't work for me.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

The term "atheist" is generally used to describe people.

Because by your definition atheism is thoughtless, and pointless, and devoid of any intellectual substance or value.

Atheism itself, yes. The value comes from the belief systems that the atheists do have.

All these must be provided by the theist or the empty silence that results is "atheism".

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."

Does everything have to be about you?

 

[PureX]

The term "atheist" is generally used to describe people.

Why is "generally used" better in your mind than "specifically means"?

Atheism itself, yes. The value comes from the belief systems that the atheists do have.

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.

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."

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is "generally used" better in your mind than "specifically means"?

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.

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.

You haven't been listening properly, then.

Do you understand the difference between "atheism is not a belief" and "atheists do not hold a belief"?

If atheists have beliefs, they can be called on to defend them just as they call on all theists to defend their beliefs.

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.

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.

Imagine that: trying to make it about you again.

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.

Again: if you want to argue atheists about their beliefs, engage with what they actually believe. 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.

 

[PureX]

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.

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!"

The first requirement of any word definition is that it needs to DEFINE SOMETHING. And "atheism - unbelief" does not define ANYTHING. It's a definition with NO CONTENT. It's trying to define a word by what IT'S NOT! And this is just plain stupid. Your Mom knows it and I know it and it's time that you knew it.

Do you understand the difference between "atheism is not a belief" and "atheists do not hold a belief"?

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.

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 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.

Again: if you want to argue atheists about their beliefs, engage with what they actually believe.

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.

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.

Right, a term with no content. Which is why it's both a stupid and a dishones defintion of the term.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If that were the case, we could not communicate using words at all.

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.

I know that to you, an atheist is somebody is somebody with no beliefs (your words: "atheists tell us ad nauseam that they have no belief"), although you also say that an atheist is somebody who believes that there are no gods. You ought to know by now that to me, an atheist is somebody who likely has many beliefs, but a belief in gods isn't one of them, and that an atheist doesn't need to claim that gods don't exist to be without a god belief - my definition of an atheist.

We can still communicate if not ever agree just by knowing that about one another, but I don't expect you to EVER assimilate or even acknowledge either of those of those definitions. If you did, however, we could have a discussion. As it stands, you continually transform what I write into something else. I'll say I have beliefs and five minutes later, you're saying that I deny having any beliefs again.

atheists tell us ad nauseam that they have no belief.

That's still incorrect. What you are told but don't seem to be able to conceptualize is that we have no god belief.

"Murder is good because removing people that stand in the way of our attaining our desires is justice being served."

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.

Theism is simply a philosophical proposition. That's it.

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.

Whether you choose to include stones, dogs, infants, and people who have never heard of gods as atheists is irrelevant to me. Call them atheists or not, whichever you prefer. Either way, they're not theists, and everything you consider eligible to be called either a theist or an atheist is one or the other but not both or neither. That's what a complement is: "a number or quantity of something, especially that required to make a group complete."

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.

Nope. Atheists define themselves as those lacking a god belief, and are happy to explain the reasoning for that.

They've become addicted to that 'kangaroo court' going on in their minds.

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.

And you and I aren't alone. The critical thinkers are all even keeled, and all of the frustrated and emotional posters with grievances to express are believers. What do you suppose accounts for that difference?

 

[McBell]

personally, as an atheist, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all the extra crap people claim atheism is.

Someone should come up with a spread sheet that explains it.

 

[Soandso]

personally, as an atheist, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all the extra crap people claim atheism is.

This^^^

Atheism is simple as a universal idea. All it is is a lack of belief or a disbelief in gods. Easy. Everything else is personal opinion, and has little to do with this single principle

 

[McBell]

This^^^

Atheism is simple as a universal idea. Everything else is personal opinion, and has little to do with the single uniting principle

What really gets my goat is the fact that it is not only theists who attach a bunch of extra crap...

Don't get me wrong, it is mostly theists.

 

[Revoltingest]

What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

Aside from the not believing in any gods thing....
1) I tend towards not believing in unevidenced things.
2) I feel no need for what gods might offer, eternal
life, meaning, punishment, reward, spirituality, help.
3) I never grew up in a religious environment.
4) I have a functioning BS alarm.
5) I find religion, scripture, vestments, prayer,
& churches creepy creepy creepy.
6) I value civil rights that religions tend to oppose.