Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist).

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism

Why would anyone think theism isn't real. To deny theism is real you would have insist Vatican city is an mass enduced worldwide LSD fantasy orchestrated by the fiendish fluridators spiking the water.

Or are you confusing 'real' with 'true'. Scientology is real, I walked past their shop once. If so can you tell me why it is true then? Or relevant?


Personally my position is this. "What do you think of religion?"............ "I don't".........

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?

Because I fit the definition and I do not consider the word 'atheist' to be offensive.

Theism is obviously real, there are millions of theists. :shrug:

As for relevance, some theists are trying to shove their mythology into the science textbooks of the public school systems. Some theists have many other political agendas, both overt and subtle. Ever heard of "blue laws"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist).

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

Because I'm also a Fairyist, a Goblinist, and Witchist. So does that mean I think that Fairies, Goblins, and Witches are real?

Because I'm also a Fairyist, a Goblinist, and Witchist. So does that mean I think that Fairies, Goblins, and Witches are real?

So what is real ? Is the color of a fruit real for a blind person ?
I love my wife , is that real to you ?, So my theism is real to me and your atheism is real to you.

So what is real ? Is the color of a fruit real for a blind person ?
I love my wife , is that real to you ?, So my theism is real to me and your atheism is real to you.

Your reply doesn't make sense, it is not on equal terms to fairies, and Goblins, so your belief in God is most likely based on your lack of ability to make sense of information.

Why do some people respond to Wynn threads?

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?They don't they are labelled that way, I consider myself to be a humanist. I'm label/tagged with the term atheist from a theistic point of view not one I determined myself. This is mainly due to the world being two thirds full of theist. And theism being the main rule of law for centuries, and all this negative labelling simply because I lack belief in the theist delusion. They believe I must be denying there delusion because it is of course real to them even thought it defies logic, reality, and the natural world.

No sir I'm labelled that way, but not through choice, it is easier to say I'm an atheist as more people understand the label, but I sir am a humanist.

When I talk to people sometimes, I say I'm humanist, if they don't understand which invariably they don't I have to go on to say I'm an atheist.

It simply their misunderstanding not mine, I know who I am.

Because I fit the definition and I do not consider the word 'atheist' to be offensive.

Would you call yourself a "kafir"?

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?

I label myself an 'agnostic'. But that's an epistemological position. Ontologically, I'm basically a default atheist I guess, since my (negative) lack-of-belief in Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu and that crew is simultaneously the (positive) belief that none of them exist as anything more than characters in human mythology.


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods.

Right, yes and very true. I've attempted to make that point in post after post (which everyone just talks around as if I'd never said anything). I'm not even entirely sure what the generic word "God" means.

If it means some Biblical/Koranic-style super-guy-in-the-sky, then I certainly don't believe in that. If it means some more Neoplatonic-style and less personal ultimate Source of being itself, then I can't entirely dismiss it and consider it a possibility. Of course, that's more of a metaphysical view than a religious view if I don't actually worship or seek to merge (or whatever one does) with that hypothetical ultimate being.


Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

In my case, it's basically the result of my living in a traditionally Christian cultural environment. So I inevitably form my own opinions about the forms of reliosity that other people display around me. If I lived in India or someplace, the shape of my implicit and rather reactionary atheism might be rather different.

If I lived in India or someplace, the shape of my implicit and rather reactionary atheism might be rather different.

Yes. In that case, you might be the kind of atheist who believes that God is everything and that all is one.

"Atheism" is a term which, on its own, doesn't actually mean anything, other than perhaps 'anti-theism' (in which case it very much is a position that entails specific beliefs and practices).

Would you call yourself a "kafir"?

If I fit the definition and I'm not offended by the term, sure.. if I would converse in Arabic on a regular basis..

"Atheism" is a term which, on its own, doesn't actually mean anything, other than perhaps 'anti-theism' (in which case it very much is a position that entails specific beliefs and practices).

atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist).

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

Correct. Except the term was invented by polytheists and first applied to Christians, since they did not believe in the Roman pantheon.

your belief in God is most likely based on your lack of ability to make sense of information.

Suddenly I understand something you posted.

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?

To ensure core values that can and will impact other people's lives are accurately communicated.



Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

Absolutely.

Correct. Except the term was invented by polytheists and applied to Christians.

Right. And at least as far back as as Socrates, grounds for execution. Also this antagonized Roman relations with the Jews, and the whole Jesus story arises in this conflict. (A guy like Jesus would seem to a Roman to be atheist.)

In my case, it's basically the result of my living in a traditionally Christian cultural environment. So I inevitably form my own opinions about the forms of reliosity that other people display around me. If I lived in India or someplace, the shape of my implicit and rather reactionary atheism might be rather different.

It also seems that Fundamentalist Christians have captured the idea of atheism for their own agenda, to mean anything anti-Fundamentalist. So if I say that Noah's Ark is a fable, they will call me an atheist.

[QUOTE=Pincho Paxton so your belief in God is most likely based on your lack of ability to make sense of information.[/QUOTE]


That is a polite way to insult. but that is ok.

Lets' that part " lack of ability to make sense of information "

I do not know how life started in this planet , I know some chemistry and some biology, I attempt to understand , chemically , and I read in the literature what is available , and at the present time there is nothing know how life started , the so called primordial soup does not make sense to me.
So I call who ever started God .
Now the atheist is as ignorant as I am on who started life , he said He know.
Why should I believe the atheist word , sense did not explain how chemically life have been put together .
Now does that make sense , or perhaps you can not comprehend

If scientists discover how life started, would you stop believing in God?

If scientists discover how life started, would you stop believing in God?

You are asking me the second time .
When it comes to cross the river we see.

It also seems that Fundamentalist Christians have captured the idea of atheism for their own agenda, to mean anything anti-Fundamentalist. So if I say that Noah's Ark is a fable, they will call me an atheist.


I am not going to call you atheist , you are a nice guy even you are what you are

It also seems that Fundamentalist Christians have captured the idea of atheism for their own agenda, to mean anything anti-Fundamentalist. So if I say that Noah's Ark is a fable, they will call me an atheist.Can you be a Christian and an atheist at the same time?
Are you a Christian?
:confused:

I am not going to call you atheist , you are a nice guy even you are what you are

Why would a lack of belief in a god make anyone a bad person? The only reason some people don't want to use that term for themselves is that same stigma that the religious society around them place upon it. But that's simply its projection upon the word...the meaning of atheist is a pretty simple one.

Can you be a Christian and an atheist at the same time?


Yes. Christians are atheists with regard to any number of other Gods.

You are asking me the second time .
When it comes to cross the river we see.

Did I ask that already? It seems like a good question, since you appear to be basing your whole belief system on this. If you cannot say that you would stop believing in God if the evidence for the origin of life were understood scientifically, then it's not your real reason for belief.

Did I ask that already? It seems like a good question, since you appear to be basing your whole belief system on this. If you cannot say that you would stop believing in God if the evidence for the origin of life were understood scientifically, then it's not your real reason for belief.



O told you I am a gambler . I don't know the future . Beside I rather believe then be positive on something that I don't know. If science will produce life that is great

"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods.

I call myself an atheist because I fit the definition, I don't believe in any gods. I don't personally see any reason not to, it's a readily identifiable term(whereas "bright" as some have attempted to relabel us is not) and it doesn't carry the same negativity that "materialist" does(given that the term is always assumed to be a moral term)

Yeah, as a term it takes it's origins from theism, but that's merely a twist of fate. Atheism is the default state for all humans, we all start off as atheists and learn to be theists. Hence I don't really see a problem here.

O told you I am a gambler . I don't know the future . Beside I rather believe then be positive on something that I don't know. If science will produce life that is great

You would rather believe a falsehood because it makes you feel good than admit you don't know something?

You would rather believe a falsehood because it makes you feel good than admit you don't know something?


Why falsehood , The teaching of Jesus are real, the prophesy of some prophets in the bible have materialized ... them if they have materialized should I not believe in some things that are written ?
Here we are talking Hypothesis ( prediction ) if thing take place don't we call them theory in science . Why not apply the same rational ?

But it could be false, since there is only a story as opposed to the physical evidence we find in science.

I would also suggest that predictions must be specific or they lose credibility.

@spidergoat --


I would also suggest that predictions must be specific or they lose credibility.

Not only that but they should also be made before the event actually occurred, such is not the case with most of the "prophecies" in the bible. And let's not forget all of the failed prophecies as well, in order to make an accurate assessment you must take all of the data into account.

But it could be false, since there is only a story as opposed to the physical evidence we find in science.

I would also suggest that predictions must be specific or they lose credibility.


Here is one of the prophesy

I believe also in Isaiah 53


“This is what the Sovereign LORD says: ‘See, I will beckon to the nations, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their hips'.” — Isaiah 49:22

Growing up and hearing the Scriptures read in synagogue, I often puzzled over this particular verse. What could that possibly mean — that God would summon the other nations to carry His sons and daughters back to their homeland, Jerusalem? How was that going to happen?

The verse comes in context of other promises God made to His people: “in the day of salvation I will help you” (v. 8), “I will not forget you! See, I engraved you on the palms of my hands” (v. 15-16). God promised that He would never forget Israel, His people. Just as He did during the time of the Exodus, God heard His people’s cries and promised to restore them.

It was not the first time that Isaiah recorded this promise from God. In chapter 14, he wrote: “The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. . . . Nations will take them and bring them to their own place” (14:1-2).

Such beautiful promises! Such wonderful encouragement! These words have been a source of comfort for the Jewish people not only during the exile to Babylon, but to Jews who have been scattered throughout the earth since 70 C.E. But the question was always how was this going to happen? How was God going to use the “nations” to bring His people back?

I think we’re seeing the answer today. God is summoning Christians from among the nations — from the United States, Canada, South America, and around the world — to help bring His people back to Israel through ministries such as The Fellowship’s On Wings of Eagles. Today, we are seeing Jews returning to Israel from the four corners of the earth — from the former Soviet Union, Africa, India, Yemen, and Morocco — and it is faithful Christians who are carrying Jewish sons and daughters back.

I thank God for His provision, for His moving in the hearts of so many and stirring them to answer the call. I am thankful for the partnership of my Christian friends in helping to fulfill this prophecy. We all can rejoice in serving a God who proves Himself faithful over and over again to fulfilling all He has promised.

If you haven’t already, won’t you consider joining us in this important ministry? And if you are already involved, who can you summon to join us?

With prayers for shalom, peace,

@arauca --

Self fulfilling prophecy much?

And how about the prophecies that failed?

Yes. Christians are atheists with regard to any number of other Gods.By that definition every one except the agnostics are atheists. Sloppy definition then isn't it.:)

@Rob --

Most agnostics are atheists too. If you can't know whether or not any deities exist then you're highly unlikely to believe in them.

Of course there are very few real agnostics out there, most of them are weak atheists who prefer to label themselves as agnostics for one reason or another.

But it could be false, since there is only a story as opposed to the physical evidence we find in science.

I would also suggest that predictions must be specific or they lose credibility.We make a lots of observations and plenty of guesses in Science.
Quite often one theory is dependent on another but in the end it is guesswork.:)

@Rob --

Sure, we make guesses in science. What we don't do in science is say that those guesses are the truth, we don't make excuses to keep using the guesses when they turn out to be wrong, and our guesses actually work.

Tell me, which "guess" that religion has made has turned out to work?

@Rob --

Sure, we make guesses in science. What we don't do in science is say that those guesses are the truth, we don't make excuses to keep using the guesses when they turn out to be wrong, and our guesses actually work.

Tell me, which "guess" that religion has made has turned out to work?I don't identify with the "churches" as such. They have made mistakes for sure.:)

@Rob --

That's irrelevant to my question.

@Rob --

That's irrelevant to my question.I went through a patch of tiredness. It is hard to think of it.
And if I gave you an example of what I think was an amazing guess that worked out you would just dismiss it as "not historic".

I am always amazed that Jesus took on the role of the suffering servant and allowed them to crucify him, on the hope that he would be resurrected, and it worked. That is a gamble beyond normal understanding.:)

@Rob --

I'm not asking what you find amazing, I'm asking what explanations religion has offered that turned out to be right.

@Rob --

I'm not asking what you find amazing, I'm asking what explanations religion has offered that turned out to be right.I'm not quite sure what you want, but I listen to explanations and I don't understand them either. So I just make up my own. :)

What mysteries has religion solved? Sure, it was a decent stop-gap in a time before we had real explanations for phenomena, but in this day and age it certainly no longer suits that purpose.

We make a lots of observations and plenty of guesses in Science.
Quite often one theory is dependent on another but in the end it is guesswork.:)

But they acknowledge which part is a guess and which part is justified by the evidence.

What mysteries has religion solved? Sure, it was a decent stop-gap in a time before we had real explanations for phenomena, but in this day and age it certainly no longer suits that purpose.I am all for change. :)

Uh, maybe because they are? Because atheists are who don't beleive in God or anything relegious?

However some say they are atheists because they think it's kinda cool or other reasons(while they're not really atheists)

Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."

This only works linguistically. Its not impossible to have an entirely atheistic culture. Atheism does not require theism.

This only works linguistically. Its not impossible to have an entirely atheistic culture. Atheism does not require theism.

Sure, after there was first theism.

You can take a bunch out atheists and ship them off onto a deserted island, and then they will be atheists who are atheists without there being any theists needed.

But in order for them to have become atheists to begin with and come to define themselves as such, there first had to be theists against whom some people form the particular kind of opposition known as "atheism."

not true. it is conceivable that a culture is founded and exists without ever imagining that there is a bearded man in the sky. In other words, there is nothing about the idea of God that is essential for the founding of a society.

For example, no one believes that there is a giant, 37,529,643 tentacled squid floating through space and will one day devour the moon and replace it with a huge wheel of cheese.

Our non-belief in this idea does not require that some people DO believe it. We do not believe it because its never occurred to us.

In the same way, a lack of belief in God does not require that some people do believe in him.

@wynn --


Sure, after there was first theism.

You can take a bunch out atheists and ship them off onto a deserted island, and then they will be atheists who are atheists without there being any theists needed.

But in order for them to have become atheists to begin with and come to define themselves as such, there first had to be theists against whom some people form the particular kind of opposition known as "atheism."

Wrong again. All humans are born without any inherent beliefs about any god or gods, therefore we are all technically atheists when we're born and we later learn to be theists(or supernaturalists or whatever). You've succeeded in putting the cart before the horse on this one.

What mysteries has religion solved? Sure, it was a decent stop-gap in a time before we had real explanations for phenomena, but in this day and age it certainly no longer suits that purpose.



You are forgetting, your kind of thinking is a minority

There are many killing in this world by people who they say they believe in God. Can you imagine if all humanity would be nonbeliever and with low education.

@wynn --



Wrong again. All humans are born without any inherent beliefs about any god or gods, therefore we are all technically atheists when we're born and we later learn to be theists(or supernaturalists or whatever). You've succeeded in putting the cart before the horse on this one.


You are wrong we are born not atheist but agnostic, we don't know anything.

“ Originally Posted by Arioch
@wynn --


Wrong again. All humans are born without any inherent beliefs about any god or gods, therefore we are all technically atheists when we're born and we later learn to be theists(or supernaturalists or whatever). You've succeeded in putting the cart before the horse on this one.

don't agree


You are wrong we are born not atheist but agnostic, we don't know anything.

don't agree






the problem comes for me by researching a little of our ancient past I have across knowledge that suggests that things are a little more complicated than things appear

while we are in most ways are very sophisticated society , science etc

so was are ancient past

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods.


Ah but what gods?

Consider Socrates defending himself against the charge of atheism:


Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach others to acknowledge some gods, and therefore do believe in gods and am not an entire atheist - this you do not lay to my charge; but only that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes - the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean to say that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?

I mean the latter - that you are a complete atheist.

That is an extraordinary statement, Meletus. Why do you say that? Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the sun or moon, which is the common creed of all men?

I assure you, judges, that he does not believe in them; for he says that the sun is stone, and the moon earth.

@wynn --

Wrong again. All humans are born without any inherent beliefs about any god or gods, therefore we are all technically atheists when we're born and we later learn to be theists(or supernaturalists or whatever). You've succeeded in putting the cart before the horse on this one.

So much for the God-gene camp!

So where do supernaturalism or theism come from?

If they are not in the DNA, if they are not real/true, where do they come from?
Delusion? And where does delusion come from?

So much for the God-gene camp!

So where do supernaturalism or theism come from?

If they are not in the DNA, if they are not real/true, where do they come from?
Delusion? And where does delusion come from?


Delusion does come from religion, it's true, but there was a prime mover of delusion, that lead the innocent and unsuspecting convert into the fallacies of religion in the first place.

That prime mover is simply error--whether combined with naïve or ignorant ideation, superstition, xenophobia, fantasies or even violent ideation, is purely academic.

DNA gives rise to an organ capable of bootstrapping a mind. Unfortunately, a mind can be a terrible thing. It's a huge price to pay for the benefit of outsmarting one's natural competitors. But the suffering (back at the dawn of humankind) was purely mental, barely a scratch on the forces at play during natural selection. So the cost-benefit ratio is acceptable, and that's the legacy of evolution.

Nitrogen yields Jesus, for example.

@wynn --


So much for the God-gene camp!

Not that there ever was much hope for the god-gene camp anyways.


So where do supernaturalism or theism come from?

If they are not in the DNA, if they are not real/true, where do they come from?

Supernaturalism most likely stems from what appears to be a natural form of dualism on our parts, arising from the illusory mind/body separation produced by our brain's higher functioning. We experience ourselves as two "different" things(and this is reflected in our speech patterns, note how we talk about "our body" in much the same way that we would talk about "our car") without ever realizing that the very separation we experience is a direct side effect of what our brains do to survive(and without ever being viscerally aware of what's going on "beneath" our thoughts).

Theism, of all sorts, is almost certainly an outgrowth of our natural agency detection faculties. At some point in our evolutionary past it became advantageous to assign agency, to assume a being of some sort were the cause, to movements and changes we detected in our environment. In most(if not all) primate species, and in many species associated with humans(i.e. domesticated species) we've discovered heightened agency detection instincts in that they have a rather large tendency to assign agency to events that weren't caused by an agent(such as lightning, or the sun rising).

Over time this tendency likely grew in sophistication as our brains did. In other words, the more we learned and observed the world the more sophisticated the agents we assigned natural phenomenon to became, thus opening the way for the first gods to be invented.

Completely natural and it fits the facts.


Delusion? And where does delusion come from?

Delusion usually comes from some sort of imbalance in the brain. It could be caused by infections, increased cranial pressure putting an extra squeeze on the brain, in fact any number of things(including some of our brains completely natural functions that it performs daily, such as the creation of false memories and the editing of real ones).

You are wrong we are born not atheist but agnostic, we don't know anything.We are born both atheist (implicit lack of belief in God) and agnostic (weak agnosticism / personal ignorance, rather than the strong agnosticism that holds that God is unknowable).

It is not always an "either / or" with regard agnosticism and atheism.

@arauca --


You are forgetting, your kind of thinking is a minority

And you're forgetting that that is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or not I'm right.


Can you imagine if all humanity would be nonbeliever and with low education.

Well, since atheists, agnostics, and other nonreligious individuals tend to behave better than their religious counterparts I imagine that the status quo would probably be quite improved. Also, since religiosity and education level have been inversely correlated in numerous studies I suspect that the education situation might be improved as well.

All in all I really don't think that it could hurt, you gain nothing from religion that I can't gain elsewhere at a cheaper cost.

@river --


don't agree

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, it is the truth. We are born with no knowledge of, and therefore no belief in any god or gods or goddesses or anything at all really(there are no infant UFO cranks or truthers, nothing like that). We don't the capability for it when we're born, we all lack the complex mental(hell, the theory of mind, which is required for a belief in god, doesn't develop in humans until around three or four years of age) and social underpinnings required for a belief in god, ergo atheism is the default state that all infants fall into.

Again, none of this will change whether you agree with it or not, reality can be rather infuriating that way.


the problem comes for me by researching a little of our ancient past I have across knowledge that suggests that things are a little more complicated than things appear

No, the "problem" is that there is a frighteningly large percentage of our planet's population that are not only still enthralled to various barbaric bronze age texts, but that they are willingly enthralled to them and a large number of them are willing to fight it out amongst all the rest to see who is "right".

This same percentage also tends to be the same percentage as the least educated among us, go figure.


while we are in most ways are very sophisticated society , science etc

so was are ancient past

Anything they can do, we can do better(and very likely faster too). And never forget that even our grade school students know things that the wisest ancients asserted(by fiat) would never be known. We know things about the universe that would seem like magic to the ancients, and we can do things that would likely make them fall down and worship us as gods. No, we shouldn't throw away what wisdom the ancients managed to glean, but we sure as hell have discovered innumerable things since then and we've proven the ancients wrong on more than one occasion.

Can you imagine if all humanity would be nonbeliever and with low education.
WTF do those two have to do with each other?
Can YOU imagine if all humanity were believers and with a low education? :shrug:

Delusion usually comes from some sort of imbalance in the brain. It could be caused by infections, increased cranial pressure putting an extra squeeze on the brain, in fact any number of things(including some of our brains completely natural functions that it performs daily, such as the creation of false memories and the editing of real ones).

And you are above and beyond all that, of course.

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, it is the truth.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

So much for the God-gene camp!

So where do supernaturalism or theism come from?

If they are not in the DNA, if they are not real/true, where do they come from?
Delusion? And where does delusion come from?

Perhaps from the evolved human or primate trait to seek the agent for any event. In nature, there almost always is one, and it could be predator or prey, both would have been important.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

It's fundamentalist to say that people are born with no inherent belief in God?

It's fundamentalist to say that people are born with no inherent belief in God?

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, it is the truth.


It's easy enough to get a man out of Southern Baptism, but to get the Southern Baptism out of a man ...

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist).

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

Or, rather, that theology is unreal and irrelevant enough to form some kind of dissociation with it, for purposes of maintaining their sanity.

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, it is the truth.

What is this truth to which you are referring?


It's easy enough to get a man out of Southern Baptism, but to get the Southern Baptism out of a man ...

...would be easier if he hadn't been taught Southern Baptism all his adolescent life and beyond, n'est-ce pas?.

Good work fighting the good fight against spidergoat's kind of fundamentalism. Only the weeded garden survives.

Or, rather, that theology is unreal and irrelevant enough to form some kind of dissociation with it, for purposes of maintaining their sanity.

I assume you have carefully studied and practiced all the major world's religions.

I assume you have carefully studied the Bible, The Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Pali Canon, practiced accordingly, and then concluded that they are not able to deliver what they promise.

Is that so?

What is this truth to which you are referring?

It's from Arioch's post above.



...would be easier if he hadn't been taught Southern Baptism all his adolescent life and beyond, n'est-ce pas?.

I don't know. Would it?
What would he be without his fundamentalist attitude? What would he have to say?

I assume you have carefully studied and practiced all the major world's religions.

I assume you have carefully studied the Bible, The Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Pali Canon, practiced accordingly, and then concluded that they are not able to deliver what they promise.

Is that so?

Indeed.


I don't know. Would it?

Yes. It would.


What would he be without his fundamentalist attitude? What would he have to say?

Probably something more cogent than the residue of brainwashing, anyway.

Indeed.

Oh.

Well, then we are not epistemic peers and there isn't really anything to discuss.

Unless you wish to bring me up to your level?

@wynn --


And you are above and beyond all that, of course.

Nope, I'm a squishy human like the rest of you(excepting Mister, of course, who is a Reptilian), which means that I'm just as subject to delusions, on average, as everyone else is. Of course, I do have some tools in my arsenal that help protect me from latching on to them, such as a rather strict burden of proof, especially for things that I want to be true. Another tool is that of peer review and a rather vehement aversion to arguments from personal incredulity.

The tools of bullshit detection are, of course, available to everyone who wants to use them, but those like myself seem to be in the minority in that we actually prefer to use them. Of course, all of this is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.


Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

Nope, and nice try equating me to yourself and others, but it's not going to work. I said what I said because it's true, and tautologically true too. Reality is reality, regardless of what we think of it or whether we even know that it's happening, and careful experimentation over thousands of years has revealed that reality doesn't change itself to suit our wishes and desires, and it especially doesn't change to fit what we believe.

And what I said is true, it's a biological fact. Human infants are simply physically incapable of forming theistic beliefs of any kind, they lack the physiological, sociological, and psychological prerequisites for such beliefs. The closest you can come to saying that infants have theistic beliefs is that they, like all humans, have agency detection software in their brains, though it's hardly operating at capacity when they're born(that takes decades and sometimes never happens).

And yeah, you're probably going to say that I can't know that, that I don't know what's in the mind of another person(which can only barely be called a person from a mental standpoint). But that's the great thing about this fact, it means that I don't need to know every thought in every infant's head to know that they can't believe in god. Biologically they lack the requirements for such a belief therefore they do not have such a belief.

Biology is such a wonderful thing.

Oh.

Well, then we are not epistemic peers and there isn't really anything to discuss.

Unless you wish to bring me up to your level?

I just did. Now: you presume people are born with some kind of natural belief in God?


It's fundamentalist to say that people are born with no inherent belief in God?


Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, it is the truth.


It's easy enough to get a man out of Southern Baptism, but to get the Southern Baptism out of a man ...

Do you realize that religion is taught, rather than inherent?

Wait, who was raised Southern Baptist?

Unless you wish to bring me up to your level? I just did.

I can't breathe, the air is so thin.



Now: you presume people are born with some kind of natural belief in God?

A person might not be born with specifically Christian beliefs, or specifically Jewish beliefs etc., but we all seem to have, for example, notions of hierarchy, meaning and worth deeply ingrained into us.
Generally, we all have a sense that not all things are equal, that some things are better than others, and we all seek meaning.

Theism as generally known in established religious traditions, works out those deeply ingrained notions in more detail.




Do you realize that religion is taught, rather than inherent?

Some of it may be taught, sure. Much is just discovered, in a person's own life.

Wait, who was raised Southern Baptist?

You certainly sound like one.

I can't breathe, the air is so thin.

I can tell. Come down off your mountain.


A person might not be born with specifically Christian beliefs, or specifically Jewish beliefs etc., but we all seem to have, for example, notions of hierarchy, meaning and worth deeply ingrained into us.
Generally, we all have a sense that not all things are equal, that some things are better than others, and we all seek meaning.

Theism as generally known in established religious traditions, works out those deeply ingrained notions in more detail.

Along a single axis, however.

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist).

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

You suggested this in another thread also.

Theism describes man's belief in god. The word (a word that meant) "man" came first I suggest. And in the word "man" is no reference to religion. If it is important which word comes first surely the first EVER word was indeed "man-believes-in-god" . . .

The word "man" as in the word that meant "man" when any word that meant "man" was first used. Get it? Like ugg=man and uggugg=woman . . . ugg.

"Man" is a word that describes. "Man believes in god" is a concept. Which has to come first? (I don't think this is useful to any arguement trying to prove or disprove god. I want to point out the BS in the argument offered previously, and to show its irrelevance.)

EVERYTHING is atheist by default, so then why would a term for "atheism" be needed before "theism" arose? It's quite simple for anyone with a brain. The world existed for millions of years with all of its inhabitants being atheist (without god) until religion socially evolved. It was only after religion became widespread that the scholars felt it required to define default existence (atheism) in counterbalance. The chronology of the arisal of the words is irrelevant to the reliance on either belief system.

What comes first:

1,Man
2,Man believing in god

Man as a word/concept to describe what is contained within individuality is far older than religion, as religion requires higher brain function to be comprehended. What concept had to come first? A concept and term to describe individuals, or a concept to describe religion?

I would assert that a term to describe "man" (man without faith) came before a term to describe religion/god. Or do we assume that the first concept/term for "man" was inclusive of the idea that that man was "an entity that believes in god" by default???

She's suggested it in a number of threads and each time gives the same, tired, old argument that's been defeated a thousand times before.

She's suggested it in a number of threads and each time gives the same, tired, old argument that's been defeated a thousand times before.

-and I would suggest that those actions by wynn are in breach of forum rules.

EVERYTHING is atheist by default

That might arguably be true, if we define 'atheist' as 'lacking belief' in the existence of god(s), or whatever sort of belief atheists are defined as lacking.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that 'weak atheist' definition though, mainly because it (perhaps in some cases intentionally) tries to collapse the state of having no belief in something together with the state of active disbelief in, opposition to and hostility towards that thing.

Imagine saying that everyone is born an a-physicist, in the sense that babies initially lack any belief in classical, relativistic or quantum physics. That's probably true in some trivial sense. But problems are going to appear when anyone begins insisting that initial state is somehow allied with and perhaps even identical to the position that adults assume when they knowingly reject and oppose physical science.

That might arguably be true, if we define 'atheist' as 'lacking belief' in the existence of god(s), or whatever sort of belief atheists are defined as lacking.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that 'weak atheist' definition though, mainly because it (perhaps in some cases intentionally) tries to collapse the state of having no belief in something together with the state of active disbelief in, opposition to and hostility towards that thing.
It is a valid use of the term "atheist". I would consider agnostics to be a type of atheist. It is reliant on definitions I concede, but ones I am comfortable with. If others wish to specify a specific type of atheist to be excluded from any thought experiment, they are within their rights to try any on for size.



Imagine saying that everyone is born an a-physicist, in the sense that babies initially lack any belief in classical, relativistic or quantum physics. That's probably true in some trivial sense. But problems are going to appear when anyone begins insisting that initial state is somehow allied with and perhaps even identical to the position that adults assume when they knowingly reject and oppose physical science.

Babies do not need to believe in physics for physics to exist. And no one is claiming babys to be or not be a-physicists. I see no issue other than definition, and my definition may be broad but I still find it valid in this thread.

Lets take another look: "One without belief in god".

Do adults who claim themselves to be atheist fit in this definition?
Do newborn babies fit within this definition?
Do animals fit here?

I see nothing to refute my assertion that atheism is the default, though I do respectfully note your reservations. If more specific avenues are to be trod, lead the way . . .

Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.

Not true could not be MORE WRONG

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists

The term atheism originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without gods", (atheoi) meaning with out god which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the god(s) worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.
_______________________________________________

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. The term theism may be used within context for monotheism, a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.


================================================== ================================
The Christian God can easily be pictured as virtually the same God as the many ancient Gods of
past civilizations. The Christian God is a three headed monster cruel, vengeful, and capricious
......If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast-like god. one only needs to
look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him they are always of two classes fools an hypocrites




Atheoi

Without much looking at the previous arguments for fear of bias and also to piss off easily 3/4 of the debaters for cutting the same path that has probably been cut, it would seem that the initial character state (as a kind of ordinal) of babies and so forth is non-theist: which is to say that no explicit character state has been chosen. There's no reason to conjoin that state with post-rationalism (of the individual, not of fucking philosophy itself, so that no pejorative is implied here) rejection of theism: again, this is an ordinal solution set, not a binary. They is not the same. So the thread can stick itself in its fleshy, ample derriere, and probably should. Doom to you all, and doom take you.

Theism is a FAITH FAITH FAITH that a single God created everything, and is the origins of whatever we call everything.