Atheism: What's the point?

[Saint Jade IV]

This thread is like the song that doesn't end...

it just keeps growing.

[Big Jim P]

This thread is like the song that doesn't end...

it just keeps growing.

Atheism: It grows on you.

[Blouman Empire]

I can't believe this thread is still going, biggest on the new NSG so far.

As for me I can see the point in some Atheists others I can't especially when some of their reasons are very similar to people who have religious beliefs but I am sure it has been repeated over and over before.

[Treznor]

I can't believe this thread is still going, biggest on the new NSG so far.

As for me I can see the point in some Atheists others I can't especially when some of their reasons are very similar to people who have religious beliefs but I am sure it has been repeated over and over before.

It's a hot topic, and has been for some time. It's especially relevant given current events.

So, what reasons do atheists endorse that you find similar to religious beliefs? Those who have absolute belief that gods do not exist ("explicit atheism") or something else?

[Saint Jade IV]

This thread is like the song that doesn't end...

it just keeps growing.

Atheism: It grows on you.

oh thats terrible

[Blouman Empire]

It's a hot topic, and has been for some time. It's especially relevant given current events.

So, what reasons do atheists endorse that you find similar to religious beliefs? Those who have absolute belief that gods do not exist ("explicit atheism") or something else?

That would be the main one, and then like some fundamentalists, the fact that you are ignorant and stupid for have different beliefs.

[Treznor]

It's a hot topic, and has been for some time. It's especially relevant given current events.

So, what reasons do atheists endorse that you find similar to religious beliefs? Those who have absolute belief that gods do not exist ("explicit atheism") or something else?

That would be the main one, and then like some fundamentalists, the fact that you are ignorant and stupid for have different beliefs.

Oh, well then. So long as we're keeping the discussion rational.

[Kamoneschia]

I, even though I am Christian, do not attach myself to the priests or any certain church. I've taken the idea of Chrisitianity and try to form my own, logical ideas around it. I personally believe their is a God, but I think the way he is understood is often quite different then how it should be done. I dunno...

[Treznor]

I, even though I am Christian, do not attach myself to the priests or any certain church. I've taken the idea of Chrisitianity and try to form my own, logical ideas around it. I personally believe their is a God, but I think the way he is understood is often quite different then how it should be done. I dunno...

Cool. So, why?

[Big Jim P]

Atheism: It grows on you.

oh thats terrible

*Bows* I'll be here all night folks.

[Ashmoria]

do you really think that using an obnoxiously large font size makes your point any better?

Side issue.....the font here on the new forum sucks, especially on quoted material. The backgound also hinders the presentation. Sorry if I have offended your sensibilities.

granted that it is taking us all time to get used to.

but you might consider LOOKING at your post after you post it and then editing when necessary. i have had to do that serveral times here.

apology accepted.

[Canuck Utopia]

I haven't "ignored" any definitions......I just question the wisdom as to the application of those definitions and again, so do other atheists. According to your definition, the minimal requirement to be an atheist, is to have an infantile mind, and that suggests that atheism is not based on logic, intellect, rationale or lack of evidence but upon a thoughtless infantile mindset.

No. Atheism (or implicit atheism, if you want to use that term) simply requires lack of belief in gods. Just because a baby is, by that definition, atheist, doesn't mean that atheism based on a "thoughtless infantile mindset".

Even atheists cannot agree on the definition of atheist, so why should I buy into a definition that ultimately makes everyone an atheist by default.

I have given my opinion on this many times. If we are all born without a concept of God, and also without a concept of God’s non-existence, that would make the baby an agnostic if you want to apply labels.

No it wouldn't. Agnostic is a statement about whether it's possible to know if gods exist.

This is where certain definitions of atheist, and there are many, is problematic. Labeling babies and children atheists before they even have a chance to seek out the truth and make their own decision is totally offensive.

However, some people argue that we are born with a God sense. To unequivocally state that babies are born atheist is illogical and impractical.

Not really. By the definition of "implicit atheist" (the form of atheism that we're arguing babies have), they are definitely atheist. They have no belief in gods.

Again, that is using YOUR definition of atheism.....see above.

[Canuck Utopia]

do you really think that using an obnoxiously large font size makes your point any better?

Side issue.....the font here on the new forum sucks, especially on quoted material. The backgound also hinders the presentation. Sorry if I have offended your sensibilities.

granted that it is taking us all time to get used to.

but you might consider LOOKING at your post after you post it and then editing when necessary. i have had to do that serveral times here.

apology accepted.

Thanks. I have edited the size of the post to a somewhat more normal size.

[Dyakovo]

This is where certain definitions of atheist, and there are many, is problematic. Labeling babies and children atheists before they even have a chance to seek out the truth and make their own decision is totally offensive.

Why is it offensive?

Not really. By the definition of "implicit atheist" (the form of atheism that we're arguing babies have), they are definitely atheist. They have no belief in gods.

Again, that is using YOUR definition of atheism.....see above.[/quote]
So in other words you agree, but your oanties get in a bunch about the word atheist...

[Blouman Empire]

Oh, well then. So long as we're keeping the discussion rational.

I certainly hope that wasn't a snipe against me, because I'm not the one saying that.

[Treznor]

Oh, well then. So long as we're keeping the discussion rational.

I certainly hope that wasn't a snipe against me, because I'm not the one saying that.

It was as much a snipe against you as your statement was a snipe against me. So, not at all.

[The Tofu Islands]

Even atheists cannot agree on the definition of atheist, so why should I buy into a definition that ultimately makes everyone an atheist by default.

Fine then. If people who don't believe in gods but don't believe that there definitely aren't any aren't atheists, what are they? A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. An a-theist is someone who is not a theist.

This is where certain definitions of atheist, and there are many, is problematic. Labeling babies and children atheists before they even have a chance to seek out the truth and make their own decision is totally offensive.

It is because they haven't had a chance to seek out the truth (or they have done so and decided there isn't enough evidence) that they are implicit atheists. Why is labeling someone who isn't a theist with a label that means "not theist" offensive?

Again, that is using YOUR definition of atheism.....see above.

No, that's using my* definition of implicit atheism. Are you contesting that definition?

*And a number of other people on this thread.

[Treznor]

No, that's using my* definition of implicit atheism. Are you contesting that definition?

*And a number of other people on this thread.

I note that he's chosen not to address my summary of separating "knowledge" from "belief." Perhaps he has no way to answer it?

[Kormanthor]

This thread is like the song that doesn't end...

it just keeps growing.

Atheism: It grows on you.

Is that kind da like a bad rash?

[Kormanthor]

Its simply not believing in any god(s) and/or other supernatural power. In otherwords, the lack of religion

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make? However if I am right and you are wrong ....

[Grave_n_idle]

So, then, that IS the most appropriate definition for "Atheist": if the purpose of language is to communicate, then you ought in general to use words with the meanings that are most likely to be communicated to your readers when they read those words. There are cases where arguments can be made against going with the flow of whatever has become the most common usage: when old distinctions between words have become blurred by recent usage, and a nuance of meaning which used to have a word devoted to it could become inexpressible; but this nuance of "implicit atheist; someone who doesn't really believe one way or the other" is not part of the ancient usage of "atheist": it is a new coinage which hasn't really caught on with the English-speaking public at large. So: your insistence on using the word in a way which is likely to be misunderstood simply causes communication failure, hence the tedious circularity of this thread.

By your logic, those who term themselves political 'anarchists' should run around blowing things up and causing trouble.

By your logic, the Democratic Party should be seeking to remove the 'representation' system.

By your logic, floppy disks should have a consistency somewhat akin to a pancake.

By your logic, Independence Day should never be celebrated in large groups.

By your logic, the American Revolution should have been about Canada and Mexico exchanging places.


You're making a nonsensical argument. Yes, lay definitions are - by their very nature - representative of the most common understanding, but that doesn't mean they have ANY meaning in a discussion of a specific event, or specific industry, or of a specific philosophy.

People who are really interested in exploring how the current popular understanding of 'atheism' is NOT representative of a large proportion of people calling themselves 'Atheists', are willing to accept that the lay terminology is insufficient. The lay terminology WILL adapt, as it tends to do. Eventually.

If you are joining Canuck in his crusade against Implicit Atheism, you've no real interest in the discussion we're having here.

[Treznor]

Its simply not believing in any god(s) and/or other supernatural power. In otherwords, the lack of religion

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make? However if I am right and you are wrong ....

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. It's primary weakness lies in its binary proposition. Suppose we're both wrong? Suppose Krishna is the god we have to worship, then both you and I are out of luck. Then there's Odin, Zeus, Ba'al, Ra and a million more recorded and unrecorded throughout human history. So suddenly the odds aren't one to one, they're one to one million or more.

Still want to take that bet?

[Kormanthor]

Its simply not believing in any god(s) and/or other supernatural power. In otherwords, the lack of religion

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make? However if I am right and you are wrong ....

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. It's primary weakness lies in its binary proposition. Suppose we're both wrong? Suppose Krishna is the god we have to worship, then both you and I are out of luck. Then there's Odin, Zeus, Ba'al, Ra and a million more recorded and unrecorded throughout human history. So suddenly the odds aren't one to one, they're one to one million or more.

Still want to take that bet?

Yes I am very willing to put my trust in my beliefs in spite of your math. Can you say the same?

[Grave_n_idle]

I would suggest that most people don't give a damn what label you want to apply to yourself, but I further suggest that you wil meet with massive resistance if you try to slap your label on them.

I'm not trying to label anyone else, so I've no idea what you think you're talking about.

Implicit Atheists are apparently having to fight some kind of Old Guard to be allowed to express what THEY believe.

To you they are but to some other athiests and myself, they aren't

Which is irrelevant. It's a label that Implicit Atheists apply, based on what they believe.

Are you going to tell political anarchists that they're not really anarchists because they don't understand what 'anarchy' means?

I haven't "ignored" any definitions......

Yes, you have. A number of them.

I just question the wisdom as to the application of those definitions and again, so do other atheists.

Bullshit. You have still failed to deal with 'Implicit Atheism' as seperate from OTHER Atheisms - which means you are ignoring the definitions. You're not 'questioning the wisdom' of the definition of 'Implicit Atheism' because you haven't actually ACKNOWLEDGED it yet, because you can't get past your OWN problems with the word 'atheism'.

According to your definition, the minimal requirement to be an atheist, is to have an infantile mind,

That's not any definition I presented.

All I have said is that it is qualified by a lack of faith - which MIGHT be a state of infantile minds, but is also a state of developed minds that don't have faith.

I do believe this is actuallly a really lame attempt at ad hominem.

...and that suggests that atheism is not based on logic, intellect, rationale or lack of evidence but upon a thoughtless infantile mindset.

To your mind, which is unwilling to discuss the actual subject matter, sure.

But, the fact that it is YOU, not the Implicit Atheists, that is unwilling to engage... well, perhaps suggests another option.

I have given my opinion on this many times. If we are all born without a concept of God, and also without a concept of God’s non-existence, that would make the baby an agnostic

No - it wouldn't. Your inabaility to understand what 'Agnostic' actually MEANS is tiresome... and this is an evasion.

I'm not asking you to apply labels - I am asking if you would agree that babies are born without a belief in gods.

Come now, answer the question - it's really a very simple one.

...if you want to apply labels. However, some people argue that we are born with a God sense. To unequivocally state that babies are born atheist is illogical and impractical.

Not at all. As far as we can tell, babies understand their entire world as extension of themselves until they realise that some of the other entities in their environment are self-governing. That would suggest that babies are incapable of comprehending the concept of a seperate 'creator' outside of themselves. It's not only pre-eminently logical - but it's also very practical - because it gives us ideas about 'awareness' that enable us to assess child development.

[Grave_n_idle]

Even atheists cannot agree on the definition of atheist, so why should I buy into a definition that ultimately makes everyone an atheist by default.

Not all Atheists acknowledge the logical basis of Implicit Atheism.

Those that do NOT acknowledge Implicit Atheism are Explicit Atheists. They have no vested interest in defending Implicit Atheism, because they perceive it as a split in 'Atheism', which they consdier to be a weakness.

Examine how many Atheists on a forum like NSG we have, self-professed... and how many of that proportion adhere to the Explicit Atheism platform versus Implicit Atheism.

The vast majority fall MUCH closer to Implicit Atheism, than they do to Explicit.

THAT is why you should buy into the definition of Implicit Atheism, as provided by Implicit Atheists.

And that is - "a lack of belief in god or gods"


So - examining your initial question - why should you 'buy into that definition'?

The only reason you should, is if you have any interest in honest debate.

If you don't, you can accept whatever you want 'Atheist' to mean, and - so long as it's just you and your friends whispering it to each other as you make jokes about us, we won't care.