RE: Is de-converting a form of converting?
October 5, 2008 at 9:07 pm
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2008 at 9:35 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 5, 2008 at 8:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Personally I think it can be viewed pretty much every way. It depends on too many unknowns, and also the agreement on the definition of atheism (which will never happen). I really don't care for the word; if someone stops believing in something I'd call that de-converting, but others will disagree.
I do agree that most people think it's kind of a subjective thing.
But also I'd say that by definition....atheism - as you know - just means not a theist....absence of theism.... atheism is as similar to theism as non-astrology is to astrology.
So on a similar note; I'd say that someone de-converted just means someone who no longer has a faith.....you can't convert TO atheism because you can't convert to non-faith.... because to convert means to give faith not to take it away....whether an atheist has been given faith or a theist's faith has been replaced with another faith.
I'd say there is a definition for atheism....it simply means non-theist. Absence of theism. Even disliking religion is not part of the definition.
The idea that atheism means non-theism....is just as clear as the idea that uncopyrightable means not-copyrightable... or that unknown means not-known.
Put simply, an atheist is to a theist what unmarked is to marked.
Heh, I quite like that last line
