aren't we all atheists?

Post Reply New Topic

Waltur -

I honestly do not get what you are honestly not getting, but since you ask:

Subject to the judgement of the alpha antitheists here, who may arguably be taken as resident experts, and informed by a regrettable tendency to take etymology seriously, but also by norms of usage among those with whom I have communicated, I operate the following definitions:

A antitheist - one who opposes belief in any divine entity

B atheist - one who does not believe any divine entity exists

C agnostic - strictly, as per the Huxley quote, one who has not at present access to data adequate to permit a definitive answer to a given question. In common parlance, most often used with reference to those as yet unable to take a position on the existence of any divine entity.

----

By the bye, I was NOT despite my academic habits quizzing MasterJedi - but desirous that he should not misuse "atheist" as one who disbelieves a specific divine entity but does not reject all proposed divine entities.

As regards Zeus, Kali, and Awesomely Glorious' Cephalopod I am infidel / nonbeliever - but Christianus sum.

----

It is an interesting question - with regard to which I am agnostic - where I sit vis a vis Ngai, Aton, Ahura Mazda, and the gods of other non-Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions. Obviously relative to their theologies I am infidel, as I am to Jew and Muslim. But on the question of whether their divine entities are blind men and elephant alternate perceptions of our divine entity or delusions, I appeal to paucity of relevant data.

Please to credit - I am not playing a game.

I sometimes play games, even word games, but I assure you I am straight in this case.

You say:

"what i'm getting at is that you say "no. agnostic, maybe." when someone says "everyone is born atheist." born not knowing if there's a god and being born not believing that there is a god is the same thing. being born believing that there is not a god would be something entirely different. "

I am saying that IF you buy into the standard definition - atheist > positing that no god of any description exists, and unless you know something about infant ideation that I do not, you cannot have a newborn atheist unless somehow he picked it up from conversations within earshot of the womb. But I find that unlikely.

Now you could say that agnostic is not appropriate because the neonate is not undecided betwwen +/- god, but has simply never encountered the proposition.

If you rule out agnostic on those grounds, fine, but you can't substitute atheist without restructuring the language. I do not know a term for one who has never yet begun to consider a concept.

Agnostic babies would have to hold the view that claims of a deity or deities is not something they can be certain of or know to be true.

There is a difference between explicit and implicit atheism. Implicit atheism is just a lack of belief in a deity or deities, explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of a deity or deities.

I mean, even adults, if they'd never been exposed to the idea of deities or a deity, not having any belief in it, would be implicit atheists. Or you could use the term agnostic atheist... or maybe not, I'm not sure if the label agnostic atheist applies to a view or if it's just a lack of theism without an actual disbelief.

I guess it comes down to what each term means to you.

In any case... I have always felt uncomfortable with being labeled Jewish because I'm from a Jewish family. I dislike having to clarify that I'm Jewish but I'm not religiously Jewish... it's mostly the "Do Jews believe (insert whatever)?" questions. I have a strong urge to make up ridiculous answers.

antitheist - one who does not believe in god or gods and is vocal about it. (eg, crossing out god on dollar bills, stickers on gideon's bibles in hotels...)

atheist - one who does not believe in god or gods but is accepting of others faith systems.

Meems -

the category "implicit atheist" is new to me - web claims it dates to 1979, which would explain why I never ran across it. Being at the time an atheist I had no possible reason to read up on atheist theory.

I think the category is a useful one. I also think the name stinks. Just about as bad as "implicit theism" - if one assumed - and I think I have seen something like this expressed - that the neonate has a hardwired awareness of God that has not reached consciousness. After all, who is to say what unconscious awarenesses the infant may have?

I think a better term would need to be neutral reflecting a presumed blank initial state.- but I will not quibble - I still have no reason to contribute to the literature on theist or atheist theory.

As for the Jewish assumption, my sympathies Of course it has to be maximally annoying. I have experienced a value shadow of it, Muslims assuming I must be Christian from my ethnicity when I was not. And once causing puzzlement - if he's Christian why does his son have a Muslim name. Hey - it is actually a Jewish name - but who's counting?

See, I think of antitheism as describing the manner in which one would act on their view(which would be explicit atheism in the case of someone who is antitheism) in the way that apatheism describes an atheist who rejects the idea of a deity, and atheism was the view being acted on.

Like... when I was a child I was an implicit atheist, when I started becoming more educated about the concept of deities and religions I became an explicit atheist and very much antitheist. Now I tend to lean toward apatheism in my actions. And always an agnostic, never claiming I had absolute knowledge of the lack of existence of a deity. That would be about as valid as me saying I have absolute knowledge of the non-existence of leprechauns. I consciously reject that a metaphysical or "spiritual" world exists or that we have souls, just as much as I consciously reject that unicorns and leprechauns are hiding in a closet somewhere filming a smurf gang-bang, but I can't say I have absolute knowledge that those things don't exist. The lack of empirical evidence of these things and my conscious awareness of the concepts/ideas of them is why I consciously reject them.

I also think the description "accepting of others faith systems" is really vague(at least, to me, I need specific explanations of most statements people make in order to be sure I know what they are trying to convey) because the word accept can be used to mean several different things. I mean to accurately describe my take on theism... I could say I'm not accepting of theism, but I would not want to force someone out of their chosen faith. I'm usually only critical of theism in conversation with other atheists. I'm bound to offend someone occasionally just by sharing my views but I won't actively engage in an argument with a theist that they are wrong for being a theist and I will explain my views to a theist but not in order to prove anything about being right or wrong.

When I argue with a theist and they are using their religion as an argument, it's much more effective to contradict their argument with their chosen faith. It's very easy to use the text of their faith or even their own statements to dismantle their argument... religions are rarely internally consistent. When arguing with a Christian, for example, the Bible is a really good tool to show how, as a Christian, they are contradicting their own religion/god etc. That's really the only way I'm actively antitheistic, using theism to debate theism works for me, so I do it. If religious people could be reasoned with, there wouldn't be any religious people.

A LOT of people think I'm a Muslim. Just from stuff like seeing on facebook that one side of my family practices Islam. In the last few years I have been getting as many questions about Islam as I do Judaism. And my name, actually, people react to the spelling and ask why I don't spell it the Biblical way... Rebekah. It used to make me laugh but... it stopped being funny after a few years.

See, think is, people don't see you or me and check to find out who we are. The vast majority glance at you, put you in a box because you have this characteristic or that, and then make up a story about you.

I suppose I should be thankful, because I once got a job just because the inteviewer decided who I was instead of listening to my answers. "We need some one who can ..." "I don't do that!" "That is awesome, welcome to the team!" I've been Jewish, Spanish, I was British except in the UK, and of course an idiot, a genius, a flunky and a rebel.

As you say, it gets old.

AND inconvenient - I cannot eat mayonnaise. So I am visiting someone who KNOWS = has been told I don't eat mayonnaise. But of course EVERYBODY eats mayonnaise. So she hands me a sandwich on which she has spread a thin layer, figuring I will just eat it. One bite - Aaargh.

Your classification system is interesting - I will have to diagram it. By my system, antitheist is a subset of atheist, where atheist is all BELIEVE NO GOD and antitheist is BELIEVE NO GOD + ACTIVE EXPRESSION, and atheist and agnostic are by definition distinct categories.

Of course you may be describing roughly where I was most of my life. I used to say I was atheist MWF and agnostic TRS, with Sunday up for grabs. In reality, the alternation was like patterns of social dialect. Formal English in the clasroom, slang at the mall - agnostic in THIS situation, talking to THESE people, atheist in other settings.

I think it works against me that my mother and stepfather own a business and operate one branch of it in the city I recently moved to. So I'm associated with them and it's not that I care whether or not people think I'm Muslim due to personal feelings, but especially after 9/11 I worried I would be at a disadvantage if people knew my mother converted to Islam and married into a family are actively part of the Muslim community. I have had interviewers allude to the fact that I might be Muslim during interviews... just vaguely enough that I couldn't say I was directly questioned about my religious status.

My classification system confuses me sometimes. I have to read a lot about terms to really understand how they are meant to be used and go from there but I don't always get it right. I always get the impression most people feel that agnosticism equates to someone who could be converted or talked into adhering to a belief system in a religion. I consider myself an agnostic, explicit atheist who is an antitheist in the most effective way possible... because I do not make the positive claim that there is no god, and I don't want to take beliefs away from anyone, I just want to work with their beliefs when talking about it. I do not say I have absolute knowledge, but I do not sit around looking for evidence. There has never been a question raised(like about NDE, of which I've had two) that I couldn't find pretty sufficient theories for with at least some empirical evidence that lead me to believing that was a more sufficient explanation than "YOU WERE IN THE AFTERLIFE."

What my antitheism really boils down to is the increased religious sectarianism in America, and a history and modern day that throughout the world shows religious sectarianism is quite often something that leads to violence. (example: in America at least - bombing abortion clinics, killing gays, the oppression of women and violence toward them, the abuse of children, etc.) My main goal when a theist wants to debate me is to quote from their own resources and show them where, within their religion, they are contradicting the words of their prophets or gods. (example: "Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.")

It really comes down to how a person chooses to interpret their chosen texts though. I just think if I can point out where the Bible effectively states that any harm you do, any judgments you make on any man or woman or child, you are going to be judged for and you are doing those things to your savior. Does that even make sense? I'm not in the mindset to argue from a theistic point of view, even less so from a Christian point of view.

From my point of view it's like that E.V. Debs quote "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison I am not free." but if I want a theist to understand why I think that mindset is good for ourselves and fellow humans, I have to find a way to relate it to something from what they believe in.

Pointing out the negatives and contradictions only leads them to wanting to defend their beliefs and cultivates insecurity... often that itself leads to a violent/angry/bitter/careless person.

I'm rambling. Bedtime I think.

My only real goal when arguing with a Christian is to hopefully inspire them with their own beliefs and faith(which I believe to be completely nuts) into thinking twice before viewing another as inferior and to realize if they have caused pain, according to their book , J.C. is feeling every bit of it and paying for it. Their own book says so. They believe he is a martyr for their sins, and if they really acted on those parts of Christianity, I think it would mean something good, no matter where their convictions stemmed from.

Interesting question...I can say that I have never had a discussion about religion with a religious person that was NOT atheist, but we are not all atheists. I am not an atheist. I'm not a theist either, but I am not an atheist.