Can a potato be an atheist?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

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

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

Strictly speaking, a potato can be an atheist, as long as a potato merely "lacks belief in Gods".

Quite evidently, I think this definition comes with some problems of its own.

Earlier in our history, the definition of atheism was quite different. When atheists were intelligent, atheism was typically defined as "A denial of the existence of God". But when it was quickly determined that this belief isn't rational, the definition fell by the wayside.

But I still think this definition carries some weight. Not in the definition itself, but in its broader implication.

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

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.

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.

[IATIA]

I do not accept the "disbelief in god or gods" as a definition, but for sake of argument, the reason a potato could not be an atheist is it's lack of the ability to manifest any belief. This would hold true of a baby or a mentally challenged individual

[genkaus]

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.

Is that so? Then stop claiming that everyone can define atheism however they want - as you did in the other thread.

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

Yes, and that is how definitions are made - by popular notion.

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.

Look up the suffix "-ist"

-ist
 
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines

Since it specifically corresponds to persons, repeating that information in the definition of every word that contains an "-ist" would be redundant. So yes, that definition is enough.

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

Depends on how you define "persons". If they come under that category, then yes, they are atheists.

Strictly speaking, a potato can be an atheist, as long as a potato merely "lacks belief in Gods".

Strictly speaking, it can't. Because it's not a person.

Quite evidently, I think this definition comes with some problems of its own.

Earlier in our history, the definition of atheism was quite different. When atheists were intelligent, atheism was typically defined as "A denial of the existence of God". But when it was quickly determined that this belief isn't rational, the definition fell by the wayside.

On the contrary, that is still a part of the definition:

a·the·ist
   [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It is not used as often because atheism and theism are more concerned with what one believes and not says.

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

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.

Bullshit. It is because rationality matters so much that people actually become atheists. It is because they don't simply want to believe what they want to believe but want their beliefs to be rationally justifiable that they consider the matter and espouse atheism. I'd say that whether or not god actually exists is very much relevant to that.

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

I know I would.

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

I would weep and mourn and cry - for the loss of the rational and logical universe that I thought I lived in.

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

That much is obvious - that you are not concerned with evidence, that is. After all, you are a theist who just pretends to be an atheist.

[Whateverist]

I've recently heard various people attempt to redefine atheism.

So other people redefine atheism while you actually have the definition? Shall we debate who's claim to the correct/best/original definition is most legitimate? Count me out. I don't care. The usage of words in English is fluid. It evolves over time. I know what the word means to me, you know what it means to you and you feel entitled to claim that only your own use is objectively correct. Whatever.

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.

But you're the only one doing that.

Strictly speaking, a potato can be an atheist, as long as a potato merely "lacks belief in Gods".

Geez. You are obsessed. Most often when we are discussing the having of particular beliefs we would be necessarily discussing only those objects which are capable of having such. So humans mostly.

Earlier in our history, the definition of atheism was quite different.

Very condescending of you. Even if you had the credentials to opine intelligently on history, no one here is obliged to take a back seat to you. Far from being a hard science, history is very definitely a subject about which intelligent people may disagree.

When atheists were intelligent, atheism was typically defined as "A denial of the existence of God". But when it was quickly determined that this belief isn't rational, the definition fell by the wayside.

But I still think this definition carries some weight. Not in the definition itself, but in its broader implication.

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

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.

But do you really think it is necessary to misrepresent the truth to yourself in order to live without the intervention of God? Are you or are you not an atheist yourself? Do you live free of concerns regarding God's intervention or is that something you only long for? Me, day in and day out, I am unaware of ever giving any consideration to the possibility of God/gods existing. So far as I can tell no belief, conscious or otherwise, is operative in me. So I live free of any concern regarding God's intervention. I don't find it necessary to shout that His nonexistence is a stone cold fact. It isn't and it doesn't matter.

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

Doing what? In the absence of evidence there is no need to waste any time over religion. For me, being an atheist is strictly a non-action, nothing in its own right, no big deal.

[jonb]

.

You say you are

[Whateverist]

.

You say you are

You mean a potato? Whoa! I didn't see that coming.

Or perhaps you mean an atheist? If so, he sure has a hard time with it, doesn't he?

[Skepsis]

@ OP:

When people say atheism is the "lack of belief in a God or Gods" they are assuming that the reasonable person would accept the definition without trying to apply it to things it is clearly not meant to apply to.
Babies, rocks, twigs; none of these things think. Therefore, when someone says "I lack belief in God, therefore I am an atheist", they are saying that a person can be an atheist only if they have the cognizance to form the idea of "lacking belief". The definition isn't meant to be applied to everything.
Analogously, when someone claims to lack preference towards milk they aren't condemning cheese, ice cream, or cake. The statement simply isn't meant to be applied to these things, or it loses its meaning.

[notfussed]

I don't think a potato could be an athiest. You have to be capable of thought, to in turn believe or make an opinion of something.

[Cyberman]

A useful little rule of thumb, when engaging in this kind of substitutionary speculation, is to reverse the subjects. If it still makes sense then it's probably structurally sound and may then be considered further. Thus, "can a woman be President of America?" reverses to "can the President of America be a woman?" - nothing wrong with that. "Can a mushroom be poisonous?" --> "Can a poisonous thing be a mushroom?" Perfect.

So let's try it out:

"Can a potato be an atheist?" --> "Can an atheist be a potato?"

Oh dear. I fear something got lost in translation somewhere.

---

---

And the cheering crowd are on their feet to give a rapturous standing ovation, as St. Imbo ascends the stage to accept this, the latest long service award marking his third millennium of posting not just here but in any forum of his career. He raises his hand and the audience of more than ten thousand packed here into Wembley Stadium for this prestigious occasion fades into an expectant hush, waiting to hear the words of the acceptance speech that have been the subject of so much media speculation these past months. And I think that... yes, he is about to address the crowd now:

"Thanks!"

Amazing! And as I'm sure you can hear the crowd has now gone absolutely apeshit, erupting into a clamorous cacophany of concentrated - erm - something else that starts with 'C'. And on that note, it's back to the studio.

---

[Angrboda]

'Grats, Stimbo!

---

Z.O.M.G.

Vinny's not cool with something.


Quick! Get Diane Sawyer on the line!



Actually, you know what I'd like? I'd like to see you prove that a potato lacks a belief in [a] god. Demonstrate that a potato — any potato of your choosing — is not a theist.