Who are "no religion" people?

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

We're born Agnostic actually, not Atheist. We aren't born believing there is no God.

 

Here lies the problem. The lie, the christian tainted lie, that declares that an atheist is person with a positive belief that there is no god. A negative to belief, wrongfully asserted as a positive belief. When in fact atheism, as I've already explained, means "not god belief." 

 

It doesn't mean "Belief there is no god." 

 

That's the christian tainted twist. Should we not call it out like we would anything else they've tainted? 

 

14 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Someone who has never heard of Superman doesn't believe there is no Superman, because they have no concept of what Superman is to begin with. They have neither a positive nor negative position regarding him, because they have no position at all.

 

 

Neither does an atheist "believe" there is no god. Again, having no concept of something only means that when it comes to knowledge (1) they don't know, agnostic, and (2) because they don't know, agnostic, they couldn't possibly positively believe that in which they do not know, atheism. 

 

Don't know, and don't believe. 

 

No position at all = not believing. If you never heard of god or super man, then to describe you against those who do believe in god or superman, you'd be described as a non-believer. 

 

Not + Belief.

 

This is default and not easily dismissed. 

 

14 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

You could make an argument that once most people learn about the concept of God, they become either an atheistic-agnostic or theistic-agnostic by default because the knowledge of the concept of God would naturally lead to leaning towards one or the other on some level, but not that people are born Atheistic.

 

That doesn't mean that no one can remain completely Agnostic at all either. It just suggests that it's probably rare.

 

I don't need to, I've laid out the argument above which is much more firm and in depth. The default is both agnostic as well as atheist because we're describing both not knowing and not believing. 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Here lies the problem. The lie, the christian tainted lie, that declares that an atheist is person with a positive belief that there is not god. A negative, wrongfully asserted as a positive belief. When in fact atheism, as I've already explained, means "not god belief." 

 

It doesn't mean "Belief there is no god." 

 

That's the christian tainted twist. Should we not call it out like we would anything else they've tainted? 

 

 

Neither does an atheist "believe" there is no god. Again, having no concept of something only means that when it comes to knowledge (1) they don't know, agnostic, and (2) because they don't know, agnostic, they couldn't possibly positively believe that in which they do not know, atheism. 

 

Don't know, and don't believe. 

 

No position at all = not believing. If you never heard of god or super man, then to describe you against those who do believe in god or superman, you'd be described as a non-believer. 

 

Not + Belief.

 

This is default and not easily dismissed. 

 

 

I don't need to, I've laid out the argument above which is much more firm and in depth. The default is both agnostic as well as atheist because we're describing both not knowing and not believing. 

 

 

 

Your "explanation" is wrong and based on misguided politics.

 

First of all, as has already been pointed out by someone else in this thread, "No positive belief = Negative belief" is a false dichotomy, null is another possibility that is neither.

 

Your "Christian politics" inserts are irrelevant frankly. It doesn't matter how the word came to its commonly understood definition. It doesn't change that it is the correct definition given how it is commonly used today.

 

I have no interest in altering that or pretending that the definition isn't what it actually is because of some misguided crusade against word usage that I've convinced myself is offensive for arbitrary reasons having to do with outdated usage.

 

It's already been explained in this thread that the etymology of a word has no bearing on its modern definition. If that mattered, "cool" would not also mean "good" or "calm".

 

No matter how many times you repeat this incorrect position of yours, it won't magically become true. The simple fact is that Atheist, as it is currently commonly understood and defined, is defined as someone who has an explicitly negative stance on the existence of God. It is specifically someone who holds the position that "God does not exist" to varying degrees of certainty. That doesn't include "none" as zero is not a negative number.

 

I fail to see what "Christian propaganda" has to do with that definition, or why you seem to think the implication that Atheist means someone who explicitly denies the existence of God to varying degrees of certainty, and not someone who simply has no positive belief in God, is somehow a negative [in both senses of the word] in the first place.

 

Agnostics are a different thing from Atheism, and the two are not mutually exclusive. However, being Agnostic does not require that one also be an Atheist. There really isn't any benefit from conflating the two, it isn't going to make theists view Atheism or Agnosticism in a more positive light either way. Nor can I see any reason why Atheists or Agnostics would see it as any more positive or negative regardless. You seem to be implying both of those things are the case, but there's no reason to reach any such conclusion.

 

I really don't understand why you're so insistent that this is some sort of weird Christian conspiracy to begin with. It doesn't make sense since a lack of belief isn't really a bad thing in the first place to anyone but Theists. Even if it did originally start out that way it doesn't really have any bearing to how positive or negative it is today.

 

You seem weirdly insistent that it's somehow some mischaracterization and a negative slur to say that Atheists assert that there is no God to some degree, as if it only implies Hard Atheism or dogmatic belief.

 

Christians might misrepresent Atheism in general as a dogmatic belief and imply that all Atheists are dogmatic and Hard Atheists, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true that Atheism specifically refers to the implicit denial of the existence of God on some level, even if it is to varying degrees of certainty and not as an explicitly dogmatic position.

 

It seems like you've taken the concept that Christians are misrepresenting Atheists too far and have projected it onto a term definition that really has nothing to do with that. Making the definition of the word fit a definition that sounds better to you isn't going to change anything. The issue is that the idea of Atheism has historically had a stigma to it, and changing the meaning of the definition to try and include Agnosticism isn't going to make that go away. The problem doesn't have anything to do with how the definition is phrased or what spectrum of Atheism it includes.

 

Atheists are already making a lot of progress to how the lack of belief is viewed in modern society. It doesn't have anything to do with Agnosticism being included at all, and the definition of it not being slightly different as to include Agnostics for no good reason isn't going to help with that any. Rather, the fact that education being more common than ever, the negative impact of religion becoming more apparent due to globalization and access to information being so prevalent, and the fact that it is safer than ever to be openly Atheist or Agnostic in civilized countries. has everything to do with why it is losing the stigma over time.

[mymistake]

Anyway, it warms my heart that these 'no religion' people keep growing in numbers.  I realize it is a diverse bunch.  Some will be people who have better things to do.  Some will have outgrown the beliefs of their childhood.  Ultimately it doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves.  They have stopped living in fear.  When Christianity can't scare people anymore that is good for society.

[ContraBardus]

1 minute ago, mymistake said:

Anyway, it warms my heart that these 'no religion' people keep growing in numbers.  I realize it is a diverse bunch.  Some will be people who have better things to do.  Some will have outgrown the beliefs of their childhood.  Ultimately it doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves.  They have stopped living in fear.  When Christianity can't scare people anymore that is good for society.

 

This we agree on. We're really only arguing about unimportant details and semantics here.

[TABA]

4 minutes ago, mymistake said:

Anyway, it warms my heart that these 'no religion' people keep growing in numbers.  I realize it is a diverse bunch.  Some will be people who have better things to do.  Some will have outgrown the beliefs of their childhood.  Ultimately it doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves.  They have stopped living in fear.  When Christianity can't scare people anymore that is good for society.

 

I would prefer that people leave religion for the right reasons, though.  Applying critical thinking and using reason is the best approach to life in general.  Somebody leaving Christianity but then embracing some other incoherent belief system might not be an improvement. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

I would prefer that people leave religion for the right reasons, though.  Applying critical thinking and using reason is the best approach to life in general.  Somebody leaving Christianity but then embracing some other incoherent belief system might not be an improvement. 

I fully concur, you won't get too far without critical thinking ability. 

[midniterider]

11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I've argued the exact opposite. Atheism is our natural state, because, of course, we're not born with positive belief in gods and not positive belief in gods, IS not belief in gods. 

 

Theism is learned, not natural. And not neutral either. There's no false dichotomy. It's literally that black and white. It sounds harsh to call babies atheist's, especially when theist's children can't possibly have positive belief in god until a certain age. But I content that that conclusion is where the truth leads.

 

If something means "not" something else, then that's it. 

 

This should soften people's perspective on atheism as our natural state, that which we are born into. 

 

Just like Santa, the Easter Bunny, or any other positive belief that's learned, we are not born believing in these evidently man made stories along with their characters. We're born a-santist's, a-easter bunniest's, a-tooth fairiest's, etc. We are also, technically, born not knowing or agnostic about them. We're born agnostic atheists in this way. And agnostic theism would have to be learned after the fact. 

 

We're born atheist's, it's really that simple. 

 

And if we're never convinced of any of this make believe story content, we stay atheist's. 

 

And, more importantly, if we become theist's and then later revert back to your natural atheist state, once again, then we're "Born Again Atheist's." 

 

I'll leave it there for now....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless you declare to yourself or others sometime between birth and 2 years old, "I am an atheist", then you're not. You're just unaware of that particular idea because well, you are unaware of most every idea. Being born an  A-Santa-ist or an A-Easter-Bunny-ist or an A-Quantum-Mechanics-ist sounds about as silly as being born an atheist or being born an agnostic..

 

But I imagine we will continue to disagree on this point.

 

Would you say that a 2 year old's atheism is equivalent to an adult's? I wouldn't. And that's why I wouldnt call it atheism. Maybe call it 'uninformed' or 'unaware' or 'oblivious.' That's what I'd call it, anyway.

 

Am I A-Calculus? Well, I am now. Because I know of the term but have never taken a class. When I was born I was unaware of the word calculus so I could not 'take a position' on it, one way or the other. 

 

Most of the time that I am not on Ex-c I am neither agnostic nor atheist nor theist. If I am not considering religion or non-religion then I'm oblivious.

 

Hey, we might be able to agree that I'm oblivious, eh?

 

Here's a nice article that is more eloquent than I am.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism

 

(This little debate is kind of splitting hairs, isnt it...haha)

 

 

[midniterider]

@Joshpantera, this article is a better elucidation of what I was thinking than the previous article I mentioned.

 

https://strangenotions.com/are-babies-atheists/

 

Babies do not believe in God. True.

 

But....

 

(From the article): Babies also do not believe the proposition "There is no God." Therefore, they are non-atheists.

[mymistake]

Interesting article.  It seems to assume that the goal is to make atheism popular.  Well that isn't my goal.  Popularity, of course, doesn't make something right.  Rather I would like to see atheists be accepted as normal.  Not to the exclusion of other types of people but rather inclusively.  We are just ordinary people.  Non-atheists often treat atheists as if there is something wrong with atheists.  But being without theism is a natural state.  Is it silly to talk about a-calculusness?  Of course!  But if it had not been for our culture's bias and history it would be and should be just as silly to talk about people being without theism.  The original meaning of atheist as the baby-killing heathen doesn't really work.  The inclusive meaning acknowledges that there are many different groups that are very similar in perspectives.  It doesn't make atheism popular so much as "please don't see us as enemies or outsides or aliens". 

 

Others have no obligation to become atheist but it would be nice if they didn't presume atheists are dogmatic, stupid, stubborn or religious simply for having a different point of view.

[ContraBardus]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Unless you declare to yourself or others sometime between birth and 2 years old, "I am an atheist", then you're not. You're just unaware of that particular idea because well, you are unaware of most every idea. Being born an  A-Santa-ist or an A-Easter-Bunny-ist or an A-Quantum-Mechanics-ist sounds about as silly as being born an atheist or being born an agnostic..

 

But I imagine we will continue to disagree on this point.

 

Would you say that a 2 year old's atheism is equivalent to an adult's? I wouldn't. And that's why I wouldnt call it atheism. Maybe call it 'uninformed' or 'unaware' or 'oblivious.' That's what I'd call it, anyway.

 

Am I A-Calculus? Well, I am now. Because I know of the term but have never taken a class. When I was born I was unaware of the word calculus so I could not 'take a position' on it, one way or the other. 

 

Most of the time that I am not on Ex-c I am neither agnostic nor atheist nor theist. If I am not considering religion or non-religion then I'm oblivious.

 

Hey, we might be able to agree that I'm oblivious, eh?

 

Here's a nice article that is more eloquent than I am.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism

 

(This little debate is kind of splitting hairs, isnt it...haha)

 

 

 

I would posit that a baby being Agnostic isn't silly, because it doesn't require knowledge of the subject to be one.

 

Agnostics don't know and have no position. Therefore, a baby is born Agnostic, because it doesn't know and has no position. The fact that it has no concept of it is irrelevant and actually supports that a baby is Agnostic.

 

Once a baby becomes aware of the concept of God, it can become an Atheist or Theist, but not before then. Because both require knowledge of the subject in order for a position to be formed.

[◊ DestinyTurtle ◊]

On 2/3/2018 at 5:29 PM, megasamurai said:

I find it interesting that about a third of Americans are "no religion" but only a tiny percent (2%) are atheist or agnostic. Who are these people? I've met people who deny that Christianity is a religion and say "It's not a religion, it's a relationship." There have been Christians in denial who hate the term Christian because of its connotations and call themselves "Jesus worshipers" or a similar moniker. It is also possible that these people are atheists or agnostics in denial because of the connotations of these words. Deism could be on the rise. They are probably a combination of these people, but I don't know how the pie is sliced. Is unbelief in Jesus' divinity really that small? 

I might be one of those people who would click 'no religion'. I noticed there is a lot of discussion in the comments here about the precise definition of atheism and agnosticism, which is an important and interesting subject, but I think I'll instead focus on why I would select 'no religion' and what's going on in my head when I do so.

 

During my time with christianity I became extremely disillusioned by what people called themselves. Many people say they're 'christian' but are extremely unrepentant, unforgiving, and unethical. Given that actions speak louder than words, sometimes I think atheists who live in accordance to Jesus' teachings can be argued as being 'christian' even though they don't identify as such. Besides, different people mean different things by various, abstract words and concepts like 'God'. Over time, instead of figuring out what to label myself and instead of playing no-true-scotsman about a particular definition of an identification, I tended to adjust my language to the particular person I am speaking to. For example, if I was speaking to a christian-identifying person whose life and actions I admire, I might say "I believe in God" meaning "I identify and agree with the personification and abstraction of goodness that I suspect you mean when you say the word 'God'." Meanwhile, if I was talking to a hellfire-and-brimstone control-freak, I might say "I don't believe in God," as in "I'm not falling for your threatening, intimidating narrative that is clearly designed for your self-elevation and control." To a third person watching me in the two conversations I might look like I'm simply being inconsistent. If you, megasamurai, read all this and believe that I'm an agnostic in denial, then I respect that and don't mind it. When there's no specific person I'm speaking to, words like 'God' have ambiguous meaning to me, and so I would click 'no religion'.

 

That being said, there are many other kinds of people who would click 'No religion'. I hope my personal narrative helps you some and gives you some perspective on your question

[florduh]

Really, are we now labeling  babies who don't even know what is out there to accept or reject? Babies who can't make informed decisions? We sure love our labels! 

 

[ContraBardus]

29 minutes ago, florduh said:

Really, are we now labeling  babies who don't even know what is out there to accept or reject? Babies who can't make informed decisions? We sure love our labels! 

 

 

If some people had their way, we'd be calling babies "it" until they can decide what gender they want to be for themselves.

 

We label things that can't make informed decisions all the time. We kind of have to just to discuss them at all.

 

There really isn't anything wrong with it.

 

You could argue that once the baby is old enough to make informed decisions, they should be able to decide for themselves, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use placeholders until that happens just so we don't sound like insane idiots trying to talk about them. Of course, others would argue that by that point, they aren't babies anymore.

[florduh]

A baby is neither a theist nor atheist. Neither a Republican nor a Democrat. It's a fucking baby! Regarding today's hot button term, gender, if it's born with a dick it's a boy, born with a pussy it's a girl, born with neither or both it's "other"  or TBD. Seems simple to me, but I'm a simple guy. 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

42 minutes ago, florduh said:

A baby is neither a theist nor atheist. Neither a Republican nor a Democrat. It's a fucking baby! Regarding today's hot button term, gender, if it's born with a dick it's a boy, born with a pussy it's a girl, born with neither or both it's "other"  or TBD. Seems simple to me, but I'm a simple guy. 

 

 

 

We basically agree here then.

 

A baby can be an Agnostic, or a blonde, or black, or curly haired.

 

I'm just saying that not every label necessarily involves a decision being made, or is a simple observation that works until the baby matures enough to decide on its own.

 

I'll also say that no child should be able to make life altering permanent decisions like hormone treatments or surgeries until they are old enough to understand the consequences and ramifications. In other words, legally an adult, or close to it in extreme cases with parental permission.

 

If you can't get a tattoo, smoke a cigarette, or get a piercing, you shouldn't be able to have life altering gender surgery or have any form of treatment that drastically alters your body. If you're not considered legally responsible enough to handle those first few things, you're not legally responsible enough for "gender reassignment" on that level either.

 

This is kind of off topic though, so that's all I'll say regarding that.

 

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Your "explanation" is wrong and based on misguided politics.

 

First of all, as has already been pointed out by someone else in this thread, "No positive belief = Negative belief" is a false dichotomy, null is another possibility that is neither.

 

Your "Christian politics" inserts are irrelevant frankly. It doesn't matter how the word came to its commonly understood definition. It doesn't change that it is the correct definition given how it is commonly used today....

 

14 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

It seems like you've taken the concept that Christians are misrepresenting Atheists too far and have projected it onto a term definition that really has nothing to do with that. Making the definition of the word fit a definition that sounds better to you isn't going to change anything. The issue is that the idea of Atheism has historically had a stigma to it, and changing the meaning of the definition to try and include Agnosticism isn't going to make that go away. The problem doesn't have anything to do with how the definition is phrased or what spectrum of Atheism it includes.

 

Alright, I'll dig this back up again from 2012 when we went over it all back then. You may have been absent that go around. 

 

Please read through this carefully before trying to respond any further about the history of atheism: 

 

Quote

http://www.freethoug....php?f=5&t=2827

 

The strong or positive view of the word "atheist" is claimed to be defined as, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God(s)" or another one is, "One who denies the existence of God(s)." This is sometimes referred to nowadays as "the new atheism" because it has no historical context - it's a new misguided version of atheism. Probably due to the fact that so many don't understand the proper definition of the word nor its historical context nor its Greek root. Essentially, they're inadvertently attempting to re-define it out of ignorance not realizing this new version is a degeneration. The problem is that these "new atheists" rigidly adhere to this strong/positive stance and they seem to be fundamentalist about it - which may also be referred to as "militant atheism."

 

The negative or weak view of the word "atheist" is defined as one who has, "An absence of belief in god(s)" or "A lack of belief in god(s)." This is the original definition of "atheist." It is historically what "atheist" has always meant and been defined as based on the original Greek root of the word and its history as you will see by reading below. It's quite simple and no changes are necessary.

 

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism

 

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheist

 

So how can the word "atheist" be a defined as a "belief" or "denial" and an "absence of belief" at the same time? Simply put, it can't. It is highly possible that only one of these views is correct. See what you think.

  Quote

"The 'weak' definition has the greatest historical precedence, it has (in my opinion, and that of Smith) the best etymology, and is the most practical. The term atheist has been widely used as a slur or an epithet to indicate an evil person. Positive Atheism Magazine thinks one of the first steps should be to hammer out a definition for the term atheism and to agree to use it. True, atheism's opponents will continue to abuse and misuse the term atheism in their efforts to refute our position, telling us that an atheist is something other than what we are (usually making us out to be people who hold the "strong" position), and then demanding that we defend this other position. However, the least we atheists can hope for is that we can agree to use the term consistently and then be able to point to that consistent use when defending our position against our opponents. This is why we hold the "weak" position and this is why we so patiently and consistently advocate for that position."

 

http://www.positivea...ail/eml9102.htm

  Quote

"The AAI (Atheist Alliance International) agrees with you on the definition of atheism. In 2003, we assigned your issue to a committee, which gave the definition of atheism, 'Absence of belief in the existence of any gods.' The committee was to have notified dictionary editors and publishers of this. We feel that, as the world's largest atheist organization, we should hold some sway. Many dictionaries today say that atheists 'deny the existence of God,' which assumes there is a god to deny the existence of. As a mostly-volunteer group, we have not yet gotten the word to all of the dictionaries.

 

I hope you will join the AAI and help us in our quest.

 

Best regards,

 

Bobbie Kirkhart

President

Atheist Alliance International

http://www.Atheistalliance.org

  Quote

"If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."

 

- "Atheism" By Michael Martin (463)

 

Martin goes on to cite several other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of 'atheism', including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

 

http://www.infidels....efinitions.html

  Quote

"What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity."

 

--"Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies" by George H. Smith, 62-3.

Those Atheists who want to adhere to the "strong" or "positive" definition of the word "atheist" should perhaps consider creating a new word that best describes their position because "atheist" isn't it. The "strong" or "positive" views are an abuse of the word. Although, that abuse largely comes from theists trying to re-define the word by projecting their own desired definition to the word 'atheist.' That way theists can put all atheists into the "strong" or "positive" corner (and attempt to make endless straw man arguments). It's intellectually dishonest and we must not let them do that.

 

Here's another perfect example:

  Quote

"Some dictionaries define godless as 'wicked', 'immoral'. I don't believe in gods but I am not 'wicked' nor am I 'immoral'. This means that dictionaries are not inerrant. It sounds like the religious society should be blamed for assigning a morally pejorative connotation to an ordinary descriptive adjective."

 

- "Loosing Faith in Faith" page 98

 

http://dictionary.re...earch?q=godless

  Quote

"If so many atheists and some of their critics have insisted on the negative definition of atheism, why have some modern philosophers called for a positive definition of atheism -- atheism as the outright denial of God's existence? Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in the chasm separating freethinkers and academic philosophers. Most modern philosophers are totally unfamiliar with atheistic literature and so remain oblivious to the tradition of negative atheism contained in that literature."

 

http://www.positivea...it/smithdef.htm

"What Is A Freethinker?"

http://www.ffrf.org/...freethinker.php

 

Theists & atheists, please make the necessary adjustments. It sounds like we need to organize a campaign contacting all the dictionaries and encyclopedias asking for this correction to be made as well. We obviously cannot rely on the theistic community to make these types of corrections for us.

 

Children are a perfect example of having an absence of belief in the concept of God. Belief in a god is something that is taught to them by devotees. No other species seems to hold any belief in the concept of God either.

[Joshpantera]

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

@Joshpantera, this article is a better elucidation of what I was thinking than the previous article I mentioned.

 

https://strangenotions.com/are-babies-atheists/

 

Babies do not believe in God. True.

 

But....

 

(From the article): Babies also do not believe the proposition "There is no God." Therefore, they are non-atheists.

 

The problem here, again, is that it boils down to this wrong assumption that atheists have a positive belief that god doesn't exist. 

 

Do you see the pattern? 

 

I quoted the atheist organizations in my last post in order to outline the problem itself. I'm speaking according to what has been established, by the atheist organization themselves, about (1) the historical usage and (2) the greek root of the term. I know exactly what I'm talking about and this obviously isn't my first rodeo with this content...

 

In order to try and counter what I've been saying, everyone has to push for atheism as a POSITIVE BELIEF and try and force that definition.

 

When that definition becomes a problem, and it is a problem for all who are trying to use it, BTW,  it then domino effects down the line and knocks down everyone who's trying use it. That can be christians, other atheists, agnostics, or any one who shares in this fallacious, essentially christian based degradation of atheism. This is not the way in which most atheists see themselves. It's a new issue that has popped up, not an historical one as I've outlined very thoroughly in the last post. I'm speaking on the side of the historical usage and root of the term, again, for any one who still may be missing that fact of the discussion. So far that seems to have flown over more than a few heads. 

 

In short, it's about christians trying to shit on atheism and atheists and force them into the "belief" sphere (where they can demand a burden of proof for the claim that god doesn't exist). And possibly some people who are not educated on the history of atheism and it's weak definition and root, trying to claim atheism and speak for it, when they're actually speaking from a platform of ignorance. And doing atheism a rather large injustice in the process. 

 

Clearly the babies as non-atheist's angle only works by way of using this fallacious argument that atheism, not god belief, is instead belief there's no god. It really isn't in any practical sense, again, as I've quoted and brought back from the 2012 go around. The other issue is agnosticism. Some here have been trying to use it as if it has to do with belief, when it doesn't. It's about knowledge, not belief. You can not have knowledge and yet believe, or you can not have knowledge and yet not believe. 

 

In order for people to go where they want to force agnosticism, they depend on raising this fallacious, and modern definition of atheism in order to get there. One which is not historically accurate, and flies in the face of the greek root: 

 

God belief > Neutral < Belief there is no god. 

 

This is where the problem is found. This is why agnosticism doesn't describe a neutral. It describing a lack of knowing. And atheism describes a lack of positive belief. 

 

PS: The whole issue of babies, I believe, comes from theists claiming that god belief is inherent in human beings. And atheist's response to that particular christian claim. That leads to why we're even talking about babies to begin with. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be. The point being, we're NOT born believing in gods. 

 

Baby = "not god belief." 

 

 

[mymistake]

8 hours ago, florduh said:

A baby is neither a theist nor atheist. Neither a Republican nor a Democrat. It's a fucking baby!  

 

 

Okay, I see you like the traditional meaning for "atheist".  Out of curiosity do you feel the same way for terms such as secular, areligious or unbeliever?  Is it possible to be neither secular nor non-secular?   Likewise to be neither areligious nor non-areligious?    . . .  neither a nonbeliever nor not a nonbeliever?

 

I'm thinking the last one is definitely pushing it too far.  Just looking to see if there is a better word choice to convey the desired meaning.

[florduh]

7 hours ago, mymistake said:

Okay, I see you like the traditional meaning for "atheist".

 

The only meaning of the word is "not theist."

 

Etymology: from French athéiste, from ancient Greek atheos, "godless, denying the gods"; from a-, "without, no" + theos, "god".

 

Acephalous means "without a head." The thing has a head or it doesn't. Why it may have no head is another topic.

[ContraBardus]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

Alright, I'll dig this back up again from 2012 when we went over it all back then. You may have been absent that go around. 

 

Please read through this carefully before trying to respond any further about the history of atheism: 

 

 

We're not really talking about the history of Atheism.

 

We're talking about the modern current definition of Atheism.

 

Who still uses "faggot" to refer to a bundle of sticks used for kindling anymore? Through most of the word's history that was the only definition for the term.

 

Does "cool" mean "calm" and "good" in modern language as well as "mildly cold"? What do either have to do with the etymological origins of the term?

 

"Boner" used to mean "goof" or "screw up" and only recently has come to mean "erection". No one uses "boner" to mean screwing up anymore.

 

 

The etymology of a word often has little to do with what its modern definition is, nor does how it was used "historically" matter much in how terms are used today.

 

Ironically, your post actually supports my claim that the definition I'm using is the commonly understood and correct one regarding modern current usage. Your examples are literally saying "We want to go back to the older outdated definition that isn't really in use anymore" which implies that the current definition doesn't mean what they'd like it to.

 

All of the people you quoted are directly admitting that I'm right, even if unintentionally. They want to change the definition to something that fits their views, but have not done so. It's partially wishful thinking, and partially an attempt to change public perception to make it happen, but they have not been successful. Maybe they will be in the future, but it hasn't happened. Until then, I'm correct. Actually, I will be even after that does happen regarding how it is how it is currently defined right now, the definition might change in the future, but it won't make me wrong regarding how it is defined now.

 

The post you've submitted actually supports my position on this more than your own if you actually read it. It's basically a post made up of petitions and op-ed articles campaigning to go back to previous use of the term, and that's an admission that it is not the current definition of the term as it is used today. They are literally saying they want to change it, but why would it need to be changed in the first place if the current definition already fit what you're arguing it does?

 

I've never seen a modern dictionary definition of Atheist as "wicked" or "amoral". How "Godless" is colloquially used is irrelevant and a separate issue, and as far as I know it is outdated and archaic to use it that way.

 

Not that it really matters even if Atheist was derogatory in regard to what its current definition is [and it's not]. Just because "bitch" is a derogatory term for a woman in modern language, doesn't mean that it doesn't mean what it does because people don't like the term or its implications. You could argue that we should go back to the old common usage where it just means "female dog", but that argument alone won't make it happen either. It will still be commonly used and defined as a derogatory term for women regardless. It doesn't matter how well reasoned your argument is regarding why we should, that isn't going to make it happen.

 

I fail to see why it matters either way whether the current usage or older outdated usage becomes common. I see no good reason why it should be changed, but wouldn't complain if it did, but that hasn't happened.

 

It's not particularly slanderous anyway, and actually a more specific definition, which isn't really a bad thing, and also not unusual regarding the evolution of the definition of terms over time. Especially since the term "Agnostic" is commonly used to refer to those who don't explicitly say there is or is not a God, and covers the gap left by the old definition falling out of use. Plus, factoring in that Atheist does not necessarily refer to a Hard Atheists specifically it makes even more sense.

 

Honestly, it seems like a strange thing to get up in arms about to me regardless of the historical origins of how it ended up that way. I don't really see how changing it benefits anyone and see no reason to support that it should be. It seems like a waste of energy better spent on other things to bother, and honestly the more specific definition simplifies things and eliminates confusion regarding who fits within the term.

 

As for all these people who want it to be defined differently for whatever reasons, wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first.

[ContraBardus]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

 

The only meaning of the word is "not theist."

 

Etymology: from French athéiste, from ancient Greek atheos, "godless, denying the gods"; from a-, "without, no" + theos, "god".

 

Acephalous means "without a head." The thing has a head or it doesn't. Why it may have no head is another topic.

 

I've pretty well proven that etymology has little say in regard to current definitions in this thread already, nor do previous commonly used definitions of a term that have fallen out of use and have become outdated, see my post above for evidence proving exactly that.

 

The fact that there are petitions and opinion articles attempting to argue that we should return to the currently outdated usage of the term proves that I'm correct, as such an argument makes no sense unless the current definition does not fit the definition they are arguing that it should.

[florduh]

Sorry, the "A" prefix has multiple applications and it always means the negative or opposite of the suffix; A-theist simply means Not-theist. Words mean what they mean and what we are arguing here is shades of atheism. It's all atheism if there is no belief in a god. Why complicate it? Sure, atheists have different reasons to not believe and different degrees of certainty just as theists do in their belief. 

[ContraBardus]

5 hours ago, florduh said:

Sorry, the "A" prefix has multiple applications and it always means the negative or opposite of the suffix; A-theist simply means Not-theist. Words mean what they mean and what we are arguing here is shades of atheism. It's all atheism if there is no belief in a god. Why complicate it? Sure, atheists have different reasons to not believe and different degrees of certainty just as theists do in their belief. 

 

Sorry, but that's irrelevant. The etymology and origin of words has little to no bearing on how they are currently used and defined. I've provided multiple examples that prove exactly that.

 

Here's more:

 

"Nice" once meant silly or foolish.

 

"Silly" once meant worthy or blessed. It then came to mean weak or vulnerable, before gradually coming to mean foolish, and still later amusing.

 

"Awful" once meant things that were worthy of awe. A common usage for it was "The awful majesty of God".

 

"Fizzle" was once a term that meant farting silently. No, seriously.

 

"Clue" used to mean a ball of yarn. It's thought that using one to navigate a maze is where it's current usage originated.

 

"Naughty" used to mean having nothing. It later evolved into meaning immoral or bad due to the association with the poor and immoral behavior.

 

A "Bachelor" was a young knight, and then became a rank at a University. It didn't mean a single male until the late 1300s.

 

"Flirt" used to mean flicking something away or using a jerking motion, such as quickly opening a fan.

 

"Hussy" used to just mean housewife.

 

"Egregious" used to mean distinguished.

 

"Divest" used to mean depriving someone of their rights or possessions rather than selling off investments.

 

"Meat" once meant solid food of any kind, not just animal flesh. The old expression "Meat and Drink" was referring to a meal in general, not a meal that specifically featured food that included animal products.

 

Also, whether it is "complicated" or not also doesn't matter. Even if it did, the same argument could be made in regard to why we should bother with changing it back. Having the term refer to something more specific actually simplifies things, especially with the term "Agnostic" covering what is excluded in regard to the old and out of date definition.

 

It could also be argued that the "A" in "Atheist" does refer to the opposite of Theist. A theist is someone who posits that there is a God, as you'd kind of have to do so to have a positive belief in one. Therefore, an "Atheist" being someone who says there is no God would be the opposite of that. If anything it is an even more literal opposite, and thus actually makes more sense.

 

[ContraBardus]

19 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The problem here, again, is that it boils down to this wrong assumption that atheists have a positive belief that god doesn't exist. 

 

Do you see the pattern? 

 

I quoted the atheist organizations in my last post in order to outline the problem itself. I'm speaking according to what has been established, by the atheist organization themselves, about (1) the historical usage and (2) the greek root of the term. I know exactly what I'm talking about and this obviously isn't my first rodeo with this content...

 

In order to try and counter what I've been saying, everyone has to push for atheism as a POSITIVE BELIEF and try and force that definition.

 

When that definition becomes a problem, and it is a problem for all who are trying to use it, BTW,  it then domino effects down the line and knocks down everyone who's trying use it. That can be christians, other atheists, agnostics, or any one who shares in this fallacious, essentially christian based degradation of atheism. This is not the way in which most atheists see themselves. It's a new issue that has popped up, not an historical one as I've outlined very thoroughly in the last post. I'm speaking on the side of the historical usage and root of the term, again, for any one who still may be missing that fact of the discussion. So far that seems to have flown over more than a few heads. 

 

In short, it's about christians trying to shit on atheism and atheists and force them into the "belief" sphere (where they can demand a burden of proof for the claim that god doesn't exist). And possibly some people who are not educated on the history of atheism and it's weak definition and root, trying to claim atheism and speak for it, when they're actually speaking from a platform of ignorance. And doing atheism a rather large injustice in the process. 

 

Clearly the babies as non-atheist's angle only works by way of using this fallacious argument that atheism, not god belief, is instead belief there's no god. It really isn't in any practical sense, again, as I've quoted and brought back from the 2012 go around. The other issue is agnosticism. Some here have been trying to use it as if it has to do with belief, when it doesn't. It's about knowledge, not belief. You can not have knowledge and yet believe, or you can not have knowledge and yet not believe. 

 

In order for people to go where they want to force agnosticism, they depend on raising this fallacious, and modern definition of atheism in order to get there. One which is not historically accurate, and flies in the face of the greek root: 

 

God belief > Neutral < Belief there is no god. 

 

This is where the problem is found. This is why agnosticism doesn't describe a neutral. It describing a lack of knowing. And atheism describes a lack of positive belief. 

 

PS: The whole issue of babies, I believe, comes from theists claiming that god belief is inherent in human beings. And atheist's response to that particular christian claim. That leads to why we're even talking about babies to begin with. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be. The point being, we're NOT born believing in gods. 

 

Baby = "not god belief." 

 

 

 

The "assumption" isn't wrong according to the modern definition of the term.

 

Again, your entire argument revolves around what some people would like it to mean, not what it does mean.

 

I also don't share this assessment. Soft Atheism does not require "proof" of the negative that God doesn't exists. Theists will make that unreasonable demand regardless.

 

This all seems very conspiracy theory-ish. Even if it does have some merit, it doesn't really matter much. It's old history and doesn't really fit with the modern views on Atheism. At least not regarding anyone who matters. Theists are always going to shit on Atheism because it is a threat to their belief systems. Changing the currently used definition to include Agnosticism isn't going to change that. They will always make illogical arguments. Shifting the modern usage of the term Atheist to include Agnostics isn't going to change anything, and honestly needlessly complicates things.

 

There's really no good reason to care that the old usage has fallen out of use. The modern definition is not particularly slanderous, nor does it really help this theistic case you're positing. It's just irrational nonsense either way, and that won't change no matter how Atheist and Agnostic are defined.

 

Changing it is a waste of energy and time that won't accomplish anything. I'm perfectly fine with the modern terminology, regardless of its origins. It's simpler and more direct and specific, and not particularly insulting or slanderous. Theist might think defining it that way gives them some sort of advantage, but I see no reason why it actually does. If anything it opens them up to a burden of proof argument.

[midniterider]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The problem here, again, is that it boils down to this wrong assumption that atheists have a positive belief that god doesn't exist. 

 

My understanding is that atheism is a declaration of one's non-belief. Without a declaration of belief or non-belief you are 'non-declared' so to speak. True, nobody has a belief system (or non-belief either) when they are born. Florduh says babies are neither Republican nor Democrat upon birth. Does this mean they are 'non-partisan' ? It would be silly to call a newborn that.

 

In short, it's about christians trying to shit on atheism and atheists and force them into the "belief" sphere (where they can demand a burden of proof for the claim that god doesn't exist). And possibly some people who are not educated on the history of atheism and it's weak definition and root, trying to claim atheism and speak for it, when they're actually speaking from a platform of ignorance. And doing atheism a rather large injustice in the process. 

.

I'm sorry that atheists take a lot of shit from Christians. The 'atheism is a religion' idea is another silly one. I think. But Atheist 'churches' popping up probably isn't helpful to dispel the idea that atheism isn't a religion. When I'm told 'we're all born atheists' or 'atheism is a religion' , I think my first thought is "So what?". 

 

Clearly the babies as non-atheist's angle only works by way of using this fallacious argument that atheism, not god belief, is instead belief there's no god. It really isn't in any practical sense, again, as I've quoted and brought back from the 2012 go around. The other issue is agnosticism. Some here have been trying to use it as if it has to do with belief, when it doesn't. It's about knowledge, not belief. You can not have knowledge and yet believe, or you can not have knowledge and yet not believe. 

.

Most of the generic internet dictionaries differ on your definition of agnosticism. True, the origin of the word means 'without knowledge' but it has morphed to mean 'without knowledge of God.' Historically, 'gangbang' has meant a sex act, but if I call the cops and mention gangbang, they are going to think "gangster activity." The meaning has changed. My parents used the word 'agnostic' with regards to belief in god. And that was in the 70s. The Greeks are probably rolling over in their graves about that, but oh well.

 

In order for people to go where they want to force agnosticism, they depend on raising this fallacious, and modern definition of atheism in order to get there. One which is not historically accurate, and flies in the face of the greek root: 

 

God belief > Neutral < Belief there is no god. 

.

Those Militant Agnostics forcing ...ummm... neutrality down your throat. I understand though. Atheism simply means lack of belief in a god....but it does not mean lack of belief in ghosts, or lack of belief in magic, or lack of belief in souls or lack of belief in ESP, or strict materialism. Atheism also has zero at all to do with science. Nada. An atheist can believe in all those other paranormal things. Just. Not. God.

 

This is where the problem is found. This is why agnosticism doesn't describe a neutral. It describing a lack of knowing. And atheism describes a lack of positive belief. 

 

PS: The whole issue of babies, I believe, comes from theists claiming that god belief is inherent in human beings. And atheist's response to that particular christian claim. That leads to why we're even talking about babies to begin with. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be. The point being, we're NOT born believing in gods. 

 

Baby = "not god belief." 

.

I agree that atheists say we are all born atheists due to Christian fanatics pushing religion down our throats. Definitely.

 

Btw, atheists are my comrades in arms, even if I argue a bit with them. I'm halfway in their direction, maybe a little more. I just choose not to go all the way.