Religion Becomes Extinct in Several Countires

I said:
"Namely, to many atheists, it probably seems like they have been pushed into atheism, or that atheism is so obvious that no choosing is necessary."
And then I gave my opinion about atheists who don't think their atheism is a matter of choice; I was not talking about all atheists.


Other than that, I don't understand why you are so hostile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As LG said -
"its nonsense to assign an ideological stance to personalities who stand outside the knowledge base. New born babies are just as much atheists as they are apolitical in regard to British involvement in Irish politics".

Would you ask an infant what he thinks of Prince William's choice of bride?
I think you wouldn't. And why wouldn't you? Because the infant cannot even speak, for one, and for two, because it is so obvious to you that an infant cannot have a stance on royal weddings because he just does not have nor cannot have any knowledge of such matters yet.

Atheism is a stance (either "There is no God" or "I do not believe in God"), and in order for anyone to take a stance, they first have to be able to at least speak, and secondly, understand what they are saying.
Infants can do neither.
The question of theism/atheism is not applicable to infants.

My example earlier was that some people, due to traumatic experiences with theism, become atheists, whereby they experience this becoming atheists as something inevitable, as something that is beyond matters of choice.
Perhaps you should watch some interviews with victims of clerical abuse, readily available lately.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice analysis, Yazata.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not a stance or an ideology. It's non belief in gods. It's ridiculous to discuss it, because it is a very well defined word.

If you think babies are theists at birth that is a valid opinion and we can discuss that. I don't necessarily think that it's natural for a child to grow up an atheist. There is a reason that people become religious. Whether this reason is that God(s) exist or something else, we can disagree on. What we're wasting time on is a disagreement about the meaning of a word that is very clearly defined: Atheist = someone who doesn't believe in divine beings (for whatever reason be it unawareness, a conscious choice, apathy or something else).

I know that light guy will come out spewing that i'm lumping stuff in the atheist category, but i'm really not. It's just the definition of the word. Yazata i liked your analysis somewhat also. You still get it wrong though. It's not really a philosophical discussion. It's a linguistic one. How can you discuss a word if you don't accept it's meaning. Trying to redefine the word atheism is a cheap shot. I don't know what the exact intent is other than to annoy by keeping up ignoring facts.

 

You can hate on anti theists guys or naturalists. There are plenty here.

 

a feminist treatise that had no mention of women would be quite slim, to say the least .....

says who?
you?
Try google - you can find heaps of articles and books about cubist /feminist/atheist ideology

A justification for something existing is a standard definition for cause .. hence we can talk about a cause for justice or a cause for labeling something cubist, atheist, feminist etc

You give trite responses that seem to have no basis outside of your opinion coupled with a strict inability to seek clarification when you are uninformed

Can you think of any ideology that doesn't have an umbrella of multiple definitions beneath it?

So you think that there is an obscure branch of feminism that doesn't deal with women?
Or an obscure branch of atheism that doesn't deal with contextualizing the claims of theists?

Or do you think that the very act of laying down categories of ideological thought like "feminism" or "atheism" encompasses certain parameters to warrant the terms as meaningful?

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm

 

the problem is that you previously gave an essential run down on metaphysical naturalism in the middle of discussing what is required to be an atheist

 

Why is that a problem?

 

yet this is the blurb about the author of this delightful piece of oratory

Austin Cline was a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance. Austin has also lectured on religion, religious violence, science, and skepticism.

and this is the blurb from the Council for Secular Humanism

For the questions that remain unanswered after we’ve cleared our minds of gods and souls and spirits, many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and freethinkers turn to secular humanism.

errr .... whoops!

So you can't think of any atheists that have established a precedent in the history of atheism?

I have literally lost track of the number of scholars who have launched an attack on theodicy, what to speak of the number of posters here who attempt to enter the same lime light

 

You don't see a problem in trying to establish two things as necessarily distinct when you just previously explained how one is a necessary condition for the other?

 

I don't get it.

They turn to secular humanism and?

Why is it that it's so important for you to redefine a word?

What is your agenda? Is it because you want to maintain those negative connotations to the word that American christians created?
I'm from another part of the world, so that might be some of the explanation.

 

What is a necassary condition for what?

Breathing is a necessary condition for running. Does that mean that "breath" is the same as "run"?

 

I thought it was clear - declaring an infant atheist is just as nonsensical as declaring it theist or apolitical in regard to british involvement in Irish politics or whatever

Its meaningless to discuss atheism as a consequence of complete unawareness much like it is meaningless to discuss apolitical views as a consequence of complete unawareness.

correction
It is one definition of the word and its usually called upon (by explicit atheists) to support claims that the world is predominantly atheist/atheist by default ...

Its a controversial definition of the term.

Hell, there's not even an atheistic consensus on this definition you insist all discussion hinge upon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

 

You got an atheist who publicizes himself as an authority on defining and propagating atheism ... and he says that its not an ideology because ideologies requires definitions and propagating.

Strangely enough, you also occasionally encounter the same absurdity in religious circles with persons writing several books about how one doesn't need a guru ...

I think its weird for you consider "ideology" unwanted negative baggage.
Its kind of first base for engineering any sort of paradigm of thought or the legitimacy and forthrightness of a critique

 

You were talking about what was required to be an atheist. You mentioned the essential idea of metaphysical naturalism (disbelief in the supernatural). Its not so much about whether atheism is metaphysical naturalism or vice versa - the problem is that you are trying to lodge the claim that atheism has no requirement for ideology, value etc, yet you bled through into issues of something clearly with ideology and value (ie metaphysical naturalism) in your run down of the essential atheist

No
but it does mean that if you are running you are breathing

 

Yes so if you're a naturalist you are also atheist (I think), but not necessarily the other way around.

Anyway I think we understand eachother now. And it was a reasonably decent debate. Let's just end it here because we will probably never agree anyway, but at least we can probably agree to disagree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh and the original topic was religion becoming extinct.

Maybe we should get back on that topic instead of discussing christian/secular definitions of the word atheist?