Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 9, 2012 at 2:22 am (This post was last modified: September 9, 2012 at 2:22 am by Tempus.)
(September 9, 2012 at 2:05 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But they are not an atheist any more than a rock or a pancake or a ceiling fan is an atheist. [...] This destroys the very basis of defining someone as an atheist- it makes it a property of inanimate objects.
The 'ist' suffix almost always refers to a person. That's how you know it doesn't / can't apply to non-sentient things.
(September 9, 2012 at 2:05 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But they are not an atheist any more than a rock or a pancake or a ceiling fan is an atheist. [...] This destroys the very basis of defining someone as an atheist- it makes it a property of inanimate objects.
The 'ist' suffix almost always refers to a person. That's how you know it doesn't / can't apply to non-sentient things.
As you'll notice, the common thread with all 'ist' words is that they refer to people.
I get that. I actually agree with you there.
But I still think that there must be some room for rationality in atheism. If atheists are characterized by infants and toddlers, it will only harm the movement.
Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:But they are not an atheist any more than a rock or a pancake or a ceiling fan is an atheist.
A human being is an atheist if they have rejected the belief in god regardless of how much thought they have put into it.
Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:This destroys the very basis of defining someone as an atheist- it makes it a property of inanimate objects.
False again. The basis of defining someone as an atheist is to represent their opinion on the existence of god. It is not a commentary on how they came to this opinon or how rational that opinion is. You are trying to put your own spin on the word atheist, which you previously said should not be done.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Now there is a difference between simply lacking belief in God versus rejecting belief in God.
In fact, rejecting belief in God is almost a necessary contradiction to your own definition of atheism, as one does not even need to think about the issue long enough to reject it in order to be an atheist.
Yes, lack of belief in god is probably the better definition. When I was typing that out, I thought that the rejection of belief would solve the problem of inanimate objects being atheists, and it puts to rest the idea that we're all born atheists, which is not an argument I particularly care for. Lack of belief, however, is probably a more proper defintion. Regardless, either position, rejection or lack of belief, does not require rational or intellectual thought, correct?
Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:This has to be cleared up, I think.
Good luck. It's nearly impossible to get a consensus among atheists on any subject.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(September 9, 2012 at 1:11 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: As such, atheism has typically been a position on the existence of God.
Traditionally? No it hasn't. The Ancient Romans referred to the earliest Christians as atheists. To them it meant "disbelief in our god" (the emperor).
Do you wake up each morning and think "You know... today, I want to be more wrong than I was yesterday..." (switches on PC)?
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed Red Celt's Blog
September 9, 2012 at 11:55 am (This post was last modified: September 9, 2012 at 11:59 am by Whateverist.)
(September 9, 2012 at 1:11 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't like merely asserting definitions, or seeing people that like to merely assert their own definitions.
It is regrettable but completely common within the normal evolution of English usage. "Atheist" is the go-to word for lots of people with a variety of stances toward religious believe. It isn't even the only word whose usage is causing the problem.
What counts as a "belief"? Are we only talking about considered beliefs or are implicit beliefs also part of the discussion?
Whether and to what degree knowledge plays into it also varies. Some scarcely think about it epistemologically. For those of us who do, atheism as the presence or absence of belief in gods is really the only way we can discuss it at all.
At the heart of the problem is the murky definition of gods themselves. "Ignosticism" has been coined for those who are agnostic and would just as soon pass on the discussion of 'gods'.
Throw into the mix such descriptors as "divine" and "supernatural", and you have even more ways for us to diverge in what we mean by what we say.
So I disagree. When it comes to discussing atheism, the only hope is to pinpoint what you mean on a number of fronts .. and that won't be easy.
I voted Atheist (other), because I have a different view of Atheism (although I'm not sure it's anything new or unique, and I apologize in advance for the wall of text).
There has been a lot of discussion in various threads lately regarding the definition(s) of atheism. Atheists and theists generally acknowledge that atheism is either a “lack of belief in god” or a “denial of the existence of god”. I think that these definitions of atheism leap-frog over what atheism actually is, on a fundamental level. To me, atheism is simply a rejection of the claim made by theists, not a disbelief or denial of any entity that they claim exists. To illustrate, if someone claims “I have an english-speaking purple gorilla at my house”, I would reject the claim being made by the claimant. It’s not that I would disbelieve or deny the existence of english-speaking purple gorillas, because that is going too far. I do not believe the claimant or the claim that is being made. I view the claim with extreme skepticism, and reject the claim itself. My response to the claimant would be “I do not believe YOU.”
“You do not believe the claim because you do not think there are such things as English speaking purple gorillas.”
No, I do not believe the claim because the claimant has not provided any valid evidence or proof that English-speaking purple gorillas exist, and so what I believe is that the claimant is full of shit.
It is the same with claims made by theists. When they say “my God: __insert name__ is the one true god, etc., etc.…”, I do not deny the existence of or have a disbelief of their God, I reject the claim that is being made, not the entity. I disbelieve the claimant, not the entity that is being proposed.
The same is true for any claim that is made. I do not have to form a belief (or a dis-belief) about every fanciful creature or entity that can be imagined. And, since I do not have to form a belief about every single one of them, I do not have to form a belief about any single one of them, gods included. I do not have a belief or a disbelief about gods, I don’t accept the claims being made about their existence.
Of course, by extension, I am rejecting the notion of a God, but only by extension, and not directly. As with any claim I would consider, if the claimant presents credible and valid evidence or proof that the entity exists, I would have reason to accept the claim, believe what the claimant is saying, and thereby “believe in” the entity being claimed. And, no, sorry, “non-empirical” evidence does not count.
I see atheism not as a rejection or disbelief in any particular God or gods, but a rejection of theist’s claims that a god exists. Otherwise, atheists would need to form a belief position (which of course would be dis-belief) of every god ever claimed to exist.
I think Strongbad has one of the better descriptions of what an atheist is to me. To have a disbelief or denial of a god or gods, suggests that there is a god that needs ignored.
To a certain extent, any description of an atheist is similar to describing 'nothing'. Once a description is attached to 'nothing', it becomes 'something'.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
![[Image: ascent_descent422.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1070.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu487%2FR3dC3lt%2Fascent_descent422.jpg)
