Can a potato be an atheist?

[Darth]

Well it can certainly be a Christian =P.
BA DUM CHSHHHH

Remain an atheist after a god reveals itself? Huh? What nonsense is this? You'd believe, that doesn't mean you'd worship, or even like.

[Norfolk And Chance]

This one is easy. To believe or not believe, you need to have a proposition to believe/not believe.
Obviously if a new born baby or a potato can't have any concept of the proposition "there is a god", their lack of belief is null and void.

Atheism of course is the rejection of theism - it's even in the name.

An atheist for me can only be a person that has been told about god, and doesn't believe it.

---

Think about it- would any of us really be surprised or shocked if it turned out that God existed?

I'd be extremely surprised.

Would we weep and mourn and cry and beg for forgiveness and try to become Christians hoping God wouldn't notice?

Would I fuck. I'd be fucking outraged and knowing it was true couldn't wait to meet the invisible, petty, murdering bastard.

Of course not. We'd remain atheists.

Sarcasm fail, because if god was proven true, you couldn't be an atheist.

So let's not kid ourselves that we're doing this for the evidence. I know I'm not.

Not sure anybody really cares what you think Vinny, because you're a poe. A bipolar one at that.

[Puddleglum]

Atheists do not believe in god.

Atheism is the lack of a belief not a belief .

Potatoes don't believe in anything as they do not have the capability of thought.

Therefore Potatoes are Atheists.

A Potato couldn't be a strong atheist, though, because Strong Atheism is a belief that god definitely does not exist.

A Potato can certainly NOT be a theist which is also a belief.

[frankiej]

I don't care what you call it... I have a lack of belief. I call it atheism, but you can call it whatever you want. If there are atheists out there who think the definition is different then so be it, but that doesn't change my lack of belief.

[Strongbad]

I think a stupid-ass question deserves an equally stupid-ass response, so here goes:

If potatoes are chopped up into say potato chips or french fries, they cannot be atheist because their conciousness has been fragmented. But, if two or more potatoes are gathered in His name, as in a bowl of mashed potatoes, then their combined conciousness would not allow for any dis-belief.

How's that, Vinnie da Poe?

[Cato]

Vinnie,
You should change your avatar:

[Ben Davis]

I've recently heard various people attempt to redefine atheism. I'm personally not cool with that. The act of one person enforcing their definition of atheism onto others seems very authoritarian and religious in its style. And I don't like atheists who try to turn atheism into a religion.

Agreed

But there is this popular notion that atheism is "merely a lack of belief in Gods".

That's because this is the fundamental, superior, etymologically accurate definition of the word. There are/have been other 'common use' definitions but they've all been created by various religious groups in order to position atheism as an opposition to their religion.

This definition needs teasing apart. Is anybody, or anything that possesses this property an atheist? What about rocks and plants and trees? Surely this definition isn't enough. It must be limited to people who lack belief in God.

It's the use of the indefinite article ('an' atheist) which makes the difference. I've referred to this in the past as 'the atheism of a stone' problem. At it's fundamental definition, the indefinite article is unnecessary to the function of the term; anything which lacks theistic belief is 'atheist', even if the object to which the term is being applied is incapable of belief. The atheism of a stone.

However the indefinite article does have a purpose in describing that the object has the capability for belief. It provides additional meaning

But okay, so maybe we all decide it's better to limit it to human beings.

No, we just need to be accurate when describing how we're using the term. Let's remember that the claim is 'theism'. Where such a claim doesn't exist is 'atheism'.

But here too, we have some problems. Are infants atheists? And senile old women atheists simply by virtue of not having the capacity of remember or understand, let alone believe? What about people in a coma? Are they atheists?

Not problems at all, just conflation of the two meanings due to inaccurate application of the indefinite article. Ask yourself the question 'Is this object claiming theism?'. If the answer is no, they're atheist. That doesn't mean that they're 'an' atheist as you haven't yet got to the point where you'r describing the capability for belief, just whether or not theism is an attribute of the object. This definition undelines the 'default position'.

Earlier in our history, the definition of atheism was quite different. When atheists were intelligent...

Were? Were?? Poor choice of words there ;-)

...atheism was typically defined as "A denial of the existence of God".

Actually, that was the first recorded abuse of the definition of 'atheist'; believers in the greek gods of Olympus used the word to describe anyone who didn't believe in the Olympian pantheon, even if they had other theistic beliefs. The original definition of the word was the fundamental one.

You see, when people were so-called strong atheists...

What's all this use of the past tense?

...I think rationality didn't matter. Whether or not there was evidence for the belief didn't matter. What mattered was what they believed, and how they lived, and what they wanted. And they WANTED to live without this God-concept.

Irrelevant. Rationality or a lack of it is a different question to whether or not one's beliefs contain theism. To use modern examples, philosophical buddhists are atheists as are many paganisms and spiritual superstitionisms. Not all of those are rational positions by any means but they are atheist. It doesn't matter what you want, just what your attributes are.

I think that is the essence, the spirit of atheism. A desire to live without the intervention of God into our daily conscious lives. And whether or not God actually existed was irrelevant.

Bollocks. Total and utter misrepresentation. Now eho's trying to redefine the word (something with which you claimed to disagree)? Atheism is the lack of theism and that's all. The position on the existence of god/s is all that atheism is related to and the attempt to attach other beliefs to the position is disingenuous.

Think about it- would any of us really be surprised or shocked if it turned out that God existed?

I would. But that's because the Abrahamic god can't possibly exist. That's one deity where I'm antitheistic.

Would we weep and mourn and cry and beg for forgiveness and try to become Christians hoping God wouldn't notice?

No. Assuming for a moment that the Abrahimc god existed, I'd want him arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.

Of course not. We'd remain atheists.

Not at all, I'd become a theist. I'd have no choice but to believe something that's really there. I'd still oppose his dictatorship but I would believe.

So let's not kid ourselves that we're doing this for the evidence. I know I'm not.

Well, that's your choice but don't pretend to speak for me when you state it. We obviously hold very different values, regardless of the fact that we're atheists.

[Haydn2]

Think about it- would any of us really be surprised or shocked if it turned out that God existed? Would we weep and mourn and cry and beg for forgiveness and try to become Christians hoping God wouldn't notice?

Of course not. We'd remain atheists.

So let's not kid ourselves that we're doing this for the evidence. I know I'm not.

This is probaly the most stupidest thing i've read on the Atheist Forum so far.

[Tempus]

Can a potato be an atheist?
Can a space shuttle be ice cream?
Can eight be red?
Can sleep be five hundred kilos?
Can time be love?
Can you?
Can you?

I rest my case.

[The Grand Nudger]

Think about it- would any of us really be surprised or shocked if it turned out that God existed? Would we weep and mourn and cry and beg for forgiveness and try to become Christians hoping God wouldn't notice?

Of course not. We'd remain atheists.

So let's not kid ourselves that we're doing this for the evidence. I know I'm not.

This is probaly the most stupidest thing i've read on the Atheist Forum so far.

Agreed Haydn.

No belief would be required in that case Vinny, so no, you wouldn't "still be an atheist". You're right though, if it turned out that any of the gods proposed were actually flitting about doing whatever the fuck they're said to be doing I wouldn't turn into some groveling sycophant all of a sudden. I would remain then (as I am now) an anti-theist. My anti-theism doesn't spring forth from my atheism.....hell, my atheism might be the only thing keeping my violently antitheist side in check. If any variant of the douche-god actually did exist I probably -would- be burning temples to the ground, for example. As it stands, since they dont, I don't. Wouldn't want to hurt a bunch of LARPers, know what I mean? Nothing wrong with dressing up and pretending to cast magical spells once a week.