Bob the atheist?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I wasn't sure exactly where to place this, but this seemed a good choice to allow for dissent, and it pertains to religion. So here goes, a thought experiment.


Bob is a simple man. So simple in fact, that he will take at face value anything and everything he is told.

Bob has never heard of religion(edit - or any concept of a god or gods, nice catch Quintessence.) Nobody has ever mentioned it to him, or told him their position on it. The concept is completely unknown to him.

Is Bob an atheist? Why or why not?


I will elaborate after 5 replies.(although forgive me if not immediately after, Ill be indisposed for several hours)

 

[Quintessence]

The question is unanswerable, because you haven't told us whether or not Bob has ever heard about god(s). Religion =/= theism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, he is, unless he happened to learn of or imagine the concept of deity somehow, and decided that he cares about it.

 

[Onyx]

Is Bob an atheist? Why or why not?

Not until he met a religious person and rejected their concept of theism. Until then, Bob is just someone who doesn't know the difference. So I think "atheism" is a label someone has to give themselves.

 

[Terese]

If you do not know the concept of worshiping God, how could he be an atheist, as that requires knowledge of God, and a rejection of the notion of God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not until he met a religious person and rejected their concept of theism. Until then, Bob is just someone who doesn't know the difference. So I think "atheism" is a label someone has to give themselves.

If you do not know the concept of worshiping God, how could he be an atheist, as that requires knowledge of God, and a rejection of the notion of God.

Do you think of atheism as a necessarily reactive instance, then?

What would someone who never thought or cared about deities be?

 

[Quintessence]

With the amendment, a few considerations come to mind. One is that there is a difference between labels we use to describe ourselves, and labels put on us by others. I am most concerned with how he describes himself. It's how things are typically done in academic studies - you go based on what the person describes themselves as, not what the researcher thinks they should be described as. Does Bob call himself an atheist? If yes, then I'd respect that, even if I disagree with it. If no, then I don't feel it's my place to project that onto him. Considering I find the "distinction" between theism and atheism fairly meaningless, that's just the easiest way for me to roll: someone is atheist if they identify as such, and not an atheist if they do not identify as such.

 

[LuisDantas]

With the amendment, a few considerations come to mind. One is that there is a difference between labels we use to describe ourselves, and labels put on us by others. I am most concerned with how he describes himself. It's how things are typically done in academic studies - you go based on what the person describes themselves as, not what the researcher thinks they should be described as. Does Bob call himself an atheist? If yes, then I'd respect that, even if I disagree with it. If no, then I don't feel it's my place to project that onto him. Considering I find the "distinction" between theism and atheism fairly meaningless, that's just the easiest way for me to roll: someone is atheist if they identify as such, and not an atheist if they do not identify as such.

That is a very sensible stance to have far as respect for self-identification goes.

But I don't think that clarifies much about what people actually are, and I don't think it attempts to answer the exact question asked in the OP, either.

By my reading, that question amounts to "Is someone who never learned or conceived of any deity an atheist?" and the only reasonable answer is "Yes, certainly".

 

[Laika]

I wasn't sure exactly where to place this, but this seemed a good choice to allow for dissent, and it pertains to religion. So here goes, a thought experiment.


Bob is a simple man. So simple in fact, that he will take at face value anything and everything he is told.

Bob has never heard of religion(edit - or any concept of a god or gods, nice catch Quintessence.) Nobody has ever mentioned it to him, or told him their position on it. The concept is completely unknown to him.

Is Bob an atheist? Why or why not?


I will elaborate after 5 replies.(although forgive me if not immediately after, Ill be indisposed for several hours)

If Bob had never heard of God, I think (as long as you define atheism as "lack of belief") he is an atheist. (Assuming he has not "discovered" or "created" a deity to believe in).

If Bob had never heard of "religion", we're talking orders of magnitude in difference. That means no bible, no Jesus, or Christmas, Santa, or Easter, etc. And that just one religion. To have "no religion" your going to have to consciously reject the concept at some level. Religious beliefs, whilst arguably false or illusionary, contain elements that are true. Religion is a way of organising knowledge, attributing causes and predicting effects which are all essential ways of understanding the world. Having no religion entails at least a form of nihilism. If not nihilism, it means coming up with consciously and deliberately "non-religious" explanations for all natural phenomena as ideas are tools for understanding and changing the world to suit our interests. The necessity of substituting religious ideas means creating an alternative system of beliefs which is very different from "lack of belief". Ideas are necessary, even if they may be religious, so someone who is "without religion" will apply to someone who consciously rejects the concept of religion. Otherwise Bob would spontaneously develop ideas that are religious to explain how the world works and so couldn't be without religion.

In both cases Bob is an atheist, but there is significant difference between what that means. "No god" refers to a specific concept. "No religion" refers to entire ways of thinking and is much harder to achieve.

 

[Quintessence]

But I don't think that clarifies much about what people actually are, and I don't think it attempts to answer the exact question asked in the OP, either.

In a sense, you're right, but if I evaded it a bit, it's because I don't think there's an answer, there are only opinions. I find it easiest to just go with what people self-identify as.

By my reading, that question amounts to "Is someone who never learned or conceived of any deity an atheist?" and the only reasonable answer is "Yes, certainly".

The thing is, "deity" is just a label for territory, right? One can experience the things the label represents without having the label applied. I see this scenario is utterly impossible, because the underlying experiences of things various cultures have called deities would still be present for every human. Humans cannot escape learning or conceiving the sun, for example, and the sun is a deity for a number of traditions. This is a major reason I go with self-identification, because otherwise, nobody is an atheist at all. It's also a major reason why I find the "distinction" between atheist and theist to be useless unless referencing specific god-concepts.

 

[HonestJoe]

By one definition, certainly; He is without a belief in any god or gods. He could more specifically be termed “a weak atheist” or “a passive atheist” which relate to not making any definitive statement about the existence of gods and not having given the concept any consideration.

Most significantly though, I don’t see why it matters. In any context where it would be relevant the question could be asked at that point (or more likely, a series or more meaningful and immediately relevant questions). It especially wouldn’t matter to Bob himself, who can’t even know whether he is atheists or not himself by definition.

 

[Revoltingest]

I say that Bob is a fellow heathen.
But I don't say this with much volume or certainty.

 

[George-ananda]

Is Bob an atheist? Why or why not?

I would be more inclined to call him 'ignorant of the issue'. In my thinking, the term 'atheist' implies you have at least considered the concept.

And by the way, Bob should stick to Building!

 

[Augustus]

I would be more inclined to call him 'ignorant of the issue'. In my thinking, the term 'atheist' implies you have at least considered the concept.

I agree.

And by the way, Bob should stick to Building!

Surely the key philosophical discourse revolves around the grand question of whether or not his monkey wrench and dungarees are also atheists given their 'lack of belief' in gods

"Dear Sirs

I am writing to complain about the filthy propaganda you are displaying disguised as children's 'entertainment'.

Bob the Builder is clad entirely in atheist clothing and frequently saves the day with tools plucked from his atheist utility belt.

Not once have I seen him saving a kitten from up a tree purely through the power of Jesus Christ, our Lord.

As such I am cancelling my subscription to your channel forthwith.

I hope this helps you to see the error of your ways.

Yours disappointedly

A theist

(That's a theist, not atheist ok?)"

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is about what I expected. Some see the word as the lack of theism, others as an active denial of theism. Really it's a all cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats sort of situation.

But on its face, it's always the former first. The prefix 'a' usually denotes the lack of something(as per the Greek negative prefix).;Amoral(as opposed to immoral), asymptomatic, ahistorical.

By contrast, the Greek prefix 'anti' denotes the opposite of, or being opposed to. Some people(generally theists) tend to conflate the two words.

Anyhow, all this is secondary to the main question that can be gleaned from my OP, which is as follows.

If Bob was raised in a place where nobody talks about religion or deities, where is it and how can I get there.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, this does connect to the passionate discussion on whether people (and inanimate objects) who are lacking the ability to declare themselves atheists should be considered atheists nonetheless.

It seems to me that the one and only reason not to would be the social expectations that some people have (not me) that atheism should be "earned" or "conscious" somehow.

 

[LuisDantas]

Anyhow, all this is secondary to the main question that can be gleaned from my OP, which is as follows.

If Bob was raised in a place where nobody talks about religion or deities, where is it and how can I get there.

I hear the Scandinavian countries come fairly close to that prescription.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I hear the Scandinavian countries come fairly close to that prescription.

Maybe once, before the libtards opened the floodgates from Mecca. But that's one for another thread.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If Bob was raised in a place where nobody talks about religion or deities, where is it and how can I get there.

I wouldn't mind going as well.

I don't even know a fellow atheist in real life. . . I'm forced to learn about and deal with religion the same way a penguin needs to learn how to swim.

Lucky these forums exist.

To the original question, I suppose we could parse and ask if someone can be an atheist without rejecting a specific theist claim, but I's say "yeah, he's an atheist."

The only difference between him and me is that He doesn't have to learn mythology to figure out how people around him think and react to the world around him. . . I do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wasn't sure exactly where to place this, but this seemed a good choice to allow for dissent, and it pertains to religion. So here goes, a thought experiment.


Bob is a simple man. So simple in fact, that he will take at face value anything and everything he is told.

Bob has never heard of religion(edit - or any concept of a god or gods, nice catch Quintessence.) Nobody has ever mentioned it to him, or told him their position on it. The concept is completely unknown to him.

Is Bob an atheist? Why or why not?


I will elaborate after 5 replies.(although forgive me if not immediately after, Ill be indisposed for several hours)

I would say no, by which I maintain that atheism is soley a response directed towards theism.

Without the ideology of theism, atheism would not be revelant or needed whatsoever for which of and in itself, would serve no purpose. .