Atheism: Position you hold, or merely a state of being?

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm interested to see what the membership of RF's views are on this question.

Much of the discussion on what an atheist is boils down to whether one thinks atheism is a considered position or conclusion that one thinks about and reaches, or whether one thinks that atheism is some kind of mere state of being which requires no thought or consideration.

In other words, is it meaningful to describe someone who can't or hasn't considered the question of god's existence as an atheist, or is atheism only meaningful in describing a position one holds after thinking about whether gods exist, and concluding that they cannot accept that belief?

EDIT: An additional point of discussion - have you ever encountered anyone who applied the label of "atheist" to themselves without having a reason for calling themselves an atheist? In other words, have you ever encountered a self-described atheist who had never considered the question of whether gods exist or not?

 

[Nakosis]

I think it can be used either way, it's just more useful when referring to a position one reaches.

 

[Willamena]

Theism is the belief in God or gods, and atheism is its negation, the rejection.

Belief isn't a "state of being," if I understand that phrase correctly. It's a relation of attitude, specifically of truth, in regards to a proposition. Yes, we are "being" in relation to the truth of the world, undoubtedly--but the issue of belief arises only when the proposition about the world gains our attention (usually when falsifiability about the proposition arises). Otherwise, there is nothing distinguishing our being from believing.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism, per se, is simply an epistemological position; a non-opinion, but there certainly are those who've actively arrived at this lack of belief from some previous belief system.

 

[Jumi]

I'm interested to see what the membership of RF's views are on this question.

I never thought of it this way, but I'd go with state of being. It sounds a bit odd to my ears though as a non-native English speaker.

EDIT: An additional point of discussion - have you ever encountered anyone who applied the label of "atheist" to themselves without having a reason for calling themselves an atheist? In other words, have you ever encountered a self-described atheist who had never considered the question of whether gods exist or not?

I consider myself to have been such before I had contact with anyone else who considered themselves atheist or read anything about atheism. I was forced to attend a religious summer camp as a kid, that was probably where I declared myself atheist the first time.

I've tried believing, but it never felt like the gods could be anything else than fiction.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm interested to see what the membership of RF's views are on this question.

Much of the discussion on what an atheist is boils down to whether one thinks atheism is a considered position or conclusion that one thinks about and reaches, or whether one thinks that atheism is some kind of mere state of being which requires no thought or consideration.

In other words, is it meaningful to describe someone who can't or hasn't considered the question of god's existence as an atheist, or is atheism only meaningful in describing a position one holds after thinking about whether gods exist, and concluding that they cannot accept that belief?

EDIT: An additional point of discussion - have you ever encountered anyone who applied the label of "atheist" to themselves without having a reason for calling themselves an atheist? In other words, have you ever encountered a self-described atheist who had never considered the question of whether gods exist or not?

Both apply to the term. Explicit atheism would be a position, at least to some degree. Implicit atheism is merely a state of being.

 

[Iti oj]

for me its both

 

[columbus]

I voted "state of being".
It is the natural, default, state of a human. Or any other sentient being.
Humans are not very well informed, rational, or honest. We are very prone to lying to ourselves and each other. So it is easy and common for people to come to believe things that are demonstrably wrong.

Therefore, religion.

The fact remains that if humans were more inclined to believe what is demonstrably true, and stay undecided about things that aren't, there would not be much religion. We'd mostly be agnostic/ atheist/deists and such.
But humans, especially very young ones, are quite vulnerable to persuation. Humans claiming to speak for God are one of the human race's biggest problems.
Tom

 

[Yerda]

I voted "state of being".
It is the natural, default, state of a human. Or any other sentient being.

You would say atheism is the default position (edit - sorry that should be 'state') of the house cat?

Humans are not very well informed, rational, or honest. We are very prone to lying to ourselves and each other. So it is easy and common for people to come to believe things that are demonstrably wrong.

Therefore, religion.

I think that's better termed superstition. Religion is a large and varied range of expression.

 

[Valjean]

You would say atheism is the default position of the house cat?.

As long as the cat has no belief in God it conforms to the definition of basic/essential/weak/implicit atheist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If it is some kind of tattoo then its a state of being, unless you have it removed.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

I'm interested to see what the membership of RF's views are on this question.

Much of the discussion on what an atheist is boils down to whether one thinks atheism is a considered position or conclusion that one thinks about and reaches, or whether one thinks that atheism is some kind of mere state of being which requires no thought or consideration.

In other words, is it meaningful to describe someone who can't or hasn't considered the question of god's existence as an atheist, or is atheism only meaningful in describing a position one holds after thinking about whether gods exist, and concluding that they cannot accept that belief?

EDIT: An additional point of discussion - have you ever encountered anyone who applied the label of "atheist" to themselves without having a reason for calling themselves an atheist? In other words, have you ever encountered a self-described atheist who had never considered the question of whether gods exist or not?

I don't know if we could ever know the answer, because by the time most people can talk, they've been exposed to some notion about God one way or the other. I have a very unusual memory, and I can remember as far back as my 2nd birthday. As I recall, I always had some sense of some other "thing" that I was connected to in some way. Something that I conferred with. I also felt like I wasn't some sort of separate entity moving through a world in which I was stranger. It's more like I was just a part of everything around me, or like the whole thing was me - the sky, the grass, the animals and so on. Like I was just a component of everything around me. Objects had personalities. Certain colors were friendly colors. Other colors were unfriendly. Red was kind and blue was a smart ***. Yellow was lazy and purple was strict but clever. Some colors had taste and smell to them (in my mind). Shapes were the same way. Everything was alive in a certain way, and I was certainly much more alive than I was after I was taught that things weren't really the way I experienced them. What a shame. Anyway, if left to my own devices, would I have come up with a notion of God? I couldn't honestly say. The world has had its way with me, so how could I know? My natural state of being had a sense of something unitive and much bigger. It wasn't atheistic and it wasn't religious. There was "something," and it had a hallowed feel to it. I still remember the feeling from time to time.

 

[Yerda]

As long as the cat has no belief in God it conforms to the definition of basic/essential/weak/implicit atheist.

That strikes me as a wee bit absurd. I think a better word for this basic/essential/weak/implicit atheism is ignorance. Which is a state of being.

 

[Shad]

Voted for position you hold since atheism and theism are ontological claims, not state of mind views.

 

[Deidre]

It's a natural conclusion one arrives at I think, not necessarily a position.

 

[columbus]

You would say atheism is the default position (edit - sorry that should be 'state') of the house cat?

The question is phrased a little awkwardly. It implies that a house cat could be taught religion and cease to be in the default state.
But no, a cat cannot change from "has no religious beliefs". It stays in the default state, just like fish and stars and humans who are never taught religion.

I think that's better termed superstition. Religion is a large and varied range of expression.

Religion is a subset of superstition. It is the belief in things that you can't understand, based on evidence that is indistinguishable from delusion or hearsay about delusions.
Tom

 

[dust1n]

I'm interested to see what the membership of RF's views are on this question.

I could accept either definition if it was given and used to make some point. They are two different facets of "atheism" to refer to.

 

[Willamena]

That strikes me as a wee bit absurd. I think a better word for this basic/essential/weak/implicit atheism is ignorance. Which is a state of being.

Rather, I think what's intended to be captured with this basicness is normal.

Atheism as what is normal.

 

[Yerda]

The question is phrased a little awkwardly. It implies that a house cat could be taught religion and cease to be in the default state.
But no, a cat cannot change from "has no religious beliefs". It stays in the default state, just like fish and stars and humans who are never taught religion.

I tend to think it detracts from the importance and validity of atheism to apply it to the ignorant condition, but I guess I don't own the term.

Religion is a subset of superstition. It is the belief in things that you can't understand, based on evidence that is indistinguishable from delusion or hearsay about delusions.
Tom

On this we also disagree, but I doubt I'm going to convince you otherwise.

 

[columbus]

I tend to think it detracts from the importance and validity of atheism to apply it to the ignorant condition, but I guess I don't own the term.

True is true, that's all.
The main difference between theists and nontheists is that nontheists are aware of that ignorance.
Believing that you have information when you don't might make you feel better but it doesn't make you correct.
Tom