If you say so ...
I do. Do you have a different definition?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: Is that your final answer?
- Thread starter Katzpur
- Start date
I do. Do you have a different definition?
What's your perspective? Are we all heathen, baby killing monsters?
(Tristesse, I've deleted my recent posts. I simply don't believe there is value in discussing things with you. Have a good day.)
ok, may I ask why? I was just adding a little humor to my post, I meant nothing personal.
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
I'm always willing to discuss and listen, if only out of curiosity. But if you ask me if there is a God I'll tell you with confidence there is none, as a statement of fact, just as I would about bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I am convinced that the God I believed in was a figment of my imagination, but that is just one God. I came to the conclusion years ago that the God I believed in couldn't possibly exist. Since then, I haven't been presented with any convincing substitute. I don't think I should have to go through every possible example before I come to the conclusion that they are all imaginary, I've looked into enough of them to satisfy my disbelief. We don't need to discover every creature that ever lived on the earth to convince me there is no bigfoot. I don't need to ask what if there is one out there who I haven't been presented with yet. I might as well say, what if the next God someone makes up will sound more convincing. I don't know what it would to convince me otherwise. Probably something we both know is impossible.
I wouldn't say my mind is closed, in fact, it's because my mind is open that I can't believe in God. It took a closed mind as a believer to not listen to all the criticism I got about my beliefs. It either takes a closed mind, or enough imagination to reinvent ones religion to match new information, to keep ones faith. Isn't it taught to have a closed mind and an open heart?
Yerda
Veteran Member
Here's my perspective. I'm bloody sick of hearing "the definition of atheism". We don't need to compile a dictionary. Here's why I think it bugs me: Folk keep badgering on about damn babies and default atheisms. It is true that babies do not harbour a belief in God (as far as we can tell) but neither do rubber ducks or Jay's pet rocks. So calling a baby an atheist is, to me, no more meaningful than describing a rubber duck as an atheist (although I'm not saying this is your argument). But, atheism then isn't just the lack of belief in God. Well, my atheism isn't, and neither is any reasonable or well thought out atheism I've encountered. It's generally a conclusion that the evidence available/encountered is not compelling. The conclusion part being important, I believe.
Ye follow?
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
This is related to the debates on deconstruction in the 60s and 70s. Deconstructionists argued that words don't have an inherent meaning. While you aren't quite saying that, you seem to be saying that the meaning of words can change over time because meaning is determined by usage, not by dictionary definition. History seems to support that idea, and I agree.
As such, the meaning of "atheist" does have many implied meanings attached to it. Those who attribute children with atheism are ignoring those attached implications. In itself, this would be fine, since there really isn't a better word; they are talking atheism, without any implications except non-belief. However, from this rough usage of the word, most who claim inherent atheism in children try to extrapolate that atheism, with its more complex implications, is the natural state. This only amounts to clever wordplay, a sort of argumentum ad limitations-of-language-um.
In short, the issue isn't that the term "atheist" isn't applicable to children. The issue is that "atheist" has more than one meaning, and people use the simple meaning that applies to children to extrapolate that a more complex meaning which doesn't apply to children is the natural human state.
No, it is not. It is related to impatience with infantile word games.
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
What, exactly, is your problem?
Yeah, I get it. I don't think babies are atheist, to be an atheist you have to be cognizant of what it is you are not believing in. I was saying baby killing monsters as a joke, you know most atheists are pro choice. Not all of them though.
Good.
More importantly, you have a narrative as to why you do not hold such a belief. Atheism is a decision.
Absolutely, atheism is a decision. But by the same token, babies aren't religious either. Their just babies. You shouldn't label them as anything. Until their old enough to decide for themselves, and by this I'm including children who have not reached a mindset or age where they are capable of determining reality for themselves. I'm against labeling children the religion of their parents.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I don't think it's accurate to say that atheism is a decision, although this may be true some of the time, for some people. It was not true for me. I never decided not to believe any more, I was incapable of believing any more.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I feel similar. It felt like realizing, instead of deciding.
Yeah, maybe deciding was a bad word, because it wasn't that way for me either. More accurately, understanding what it is you don't believe, or something like that.
Why was that?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Why was what? The incapable of believing anymore part? Because it doesn't make sense.
Atheism is no more a decision than theism or anything else is. I didn't say "You know, I don't want to believe in God anymore, so I'm going to be an atheist". After thinking about things for a long time I realized that the beliefs just didn't make sense and that I therefore didn't believe in them.
And, if you go by one definition of atheism, then babies are atheists. However, I agree that it's pointless to give them any label like that.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
Sure it's a decision. Any opinion reached through the process of cognition is a decision.
If and when I decide to ask you a question or accept you as Mr Spinkles' proxy I'll let you know.
I don't think I agree with that. I don't see how recognizing something for what it is can be considered a decision, whether you're talking about looking at an apple and thinking "that's an apple" or reflecting on one's beliefs and recognizing that they're atheistic.
However, choosing to apply the label "atheist" instead of others that might be just as valid... I recognize that's a decision.