See, that's why atheism is so unpopular. Instead of having some spiritual celebrations, you are discussing the technicality of word definitions.

It is completely irrelevant to discuss whether one should be proud (in the literal meaning of the word) to be an atheist and what an atheist exactly is when the quote originally referred doesn't mean proud in the literal sense and doesn't refer to atheism in the literal sense.

The thread title should read "Are you open about being non-Religious?"

Cito di Pense wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Cito you once again cut of the part of my post that explained my position. I will not post it again.

The point is, the people who invented deities are entirely anonymous, and using their shit to say you don't rule out the possibility of deities speaks to me of some sort of nostalgia for belief in deities. You have not justified your elaboration of atheism in that regard. What it boils down to, if you don't really want to think about the problem, is: "I don't believe in deities because I don't fucking feel like it." I have no objection to stating it that way, but it doesn't belong in a skeptical discussion about how proud or humble one can be about one's atheism.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:You suggested because they were from a more ignorant time that the idea itself should be rejected, that simply isn't the case. It might make the idea not very likely, but no matter how wrong we think the reasons are for thinking up that idea it is in this very large possibly infinite universe possible to some slim degree.

Is this the self-serving bullshit you wanted me to cite, Darth? I'm basing my opinion of the goat-roasters' inventions on facts uncovered by more recent research, knowledge that they didn't have as they tried to 'interpret' the cosmos.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:You seem to be getting really really silly, do you not like it that I don't accept your argument?

You're starting to sound like Mr.Samsa. What, did you guys go to the same internet forum dissing school? It certainly appears you both went to the same school of not ruling out the possibility of the supernatural. My guess is that school is called 'RE'. Why not confront my argument, instead?

You don't have an argument Cito. I asked you to show me how I could reject an idea and you failed, it in no way differed from the way I accept an idea and find a lack of evidence for it in reality. I think of myself as intellectually honest and that means accepting I don't know everything and that there is a chance no matter how small that the idea of god while thought up for all the wrong reason might turn out to be right. But until that evidence is presented to me I lack a belief in a god or gods, if it ever is presented I will change my opinion and gain a belief. You are the one talking about ancient people and what they did, I didn't bring it into the conversation. I have thought about my atheism a lot, I think about it all the time actually in the regard that I am always looking at what people claim to be evidence for a god or gods and seeing if it stands up...it doesn't.

I actually do rule out the possibility of the supernatural, the word is meaningless bunk. If something can affect this reality then it is natural and can be described and understood as such. Evidence for a god is possible to find if a god exists, it has not been found so I have not be shown it.

quas wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Quas you just told me babies were itheists now under this new logic they are atheists.

That's because the logic of the English language is confusing. Insane is the opposite of sane as much as inflammable means flammable.

And I dont think your logic about immoral holds either.

What do you mean?

Yes the English language is a rather hodge podged together thing, which is why basing an argument solely on what a word should mean can be rather fruitless. That leaves it up to the people using the word to define it, in this context atheism means a lack of belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter how a person got to that lack of belief they are an atheist if they lack it. You would be best served to use atheist to mean any one lacking a belief and use itheist to mean a person who has come to that conclusion due to what you think of as a suitable means. But any itheist in that regard would still be an atheist, they would just have one more label to help better define their lack of belief.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

quas wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Quas you just told me babies were itheists now under this new logic they are atheists.

That's because the logic of the English language is confusing. Insane is the opposite of sane as much as inflammable means flammable.

And I dont think your logic about immoral holds either.

What do you mean?

Yes the English language is a rather hodge podged together thing, which is why basing an argument solely on what a word should mean can be rather fruitless. That leaves it up to the people using the word to define it, in this context atheism means a lack of belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter how a person got to that lack of belief they are an atheist if they lack it. You would be best served to use atheist to mean any one lacking a belief and use itheist to mean a person who has come to that conclusion due to what you think of as a suitable means. But any itheist in that regard would still be an atheist, they would just have one more label to help better define their lack of belief.

really matters not how one arrived at lacking belief in god/s, when one does, another atheist has arrived on planet reason.

quas wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You obviously are trying to make a case that there is something special about a refusal or rejection. I suspect it packs a moral judgement, and maybe something more than the default of 'itheism', but you'll have to clarify your thinking to us before we can decide that. Rejection can happen uncritically or critically, and you make no distinction between those cases.

I agree that rejection can be uncritical.

Richard Dawkins said something like, "All of us are atheists with regard to all gods but our own, some of us just go one god further". This is wrong. A Hindu is not an atheist just because he doesn't believe in the Christian God, because the Hindu's rejection of Christian beliefs is uncritical.

FIFY

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

...from The God Delusion.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4416-we ... -gods-that

DarthHelmet86 wrote:It doesn't matter how a person got to that lack of belief they are an atheist if they lack it.

It matters, otherwise babies who have yet to develop the mental capacity to be a-/theists can be atheists.

You would be best served to use atheist to mean any one lacking a belief

That would only make sense if the a- prefix refers to a neutral position, as in amoral is the neutral form of im-/moral. Amoral is dictionary defined as "lacking a moral sense". Here, 'lack(ing)' is not the same as not having moral sense (which would be immoral). Babies cannot be moral or immoral, so they are amoral. Maybe the word 'atheist' was originally used to denote the neutral position ie. lack of belief. In this usage, babies can be atheists. But, the thing is, language has evolved such that people no longer use 'atheist' to refer to this neutral position, such that some dictionaries have begun to define atheism as disbelief (the sort of disbelief that is necessarily the product of conscious rejection), instead of merely lack of belief.

redwhine wrote:

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

...from The God Delusion.

This is embarrassing. I am not atheistic to the Christian God in the way that a person brought up to be a Muslim is atheistic to the Christian God. It's just not on the same intellectual level, okay?! I don't understand why anyone would want to cheapen their atheism to this level, and in doing so, equate themselves to a theist. False humility has its place, like when you want to impress a potential mate, or some other important bullshit like that. But since I'm not going to give you my number, so what's the point?

quas wrote:

redwhine wrote:

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

...from The God Delusion.

This is embarrassing. I am not atheistic to the Christian God in the way that a person brought up to be a Muslim is atheistic to the Christian God.

Except neither Christians or Muslims are atheistic towards the other's god. Muslims and Christians both worship the God of Abraham.

Christian: Jesus is God.
Muslim: He is not.

quas wrote:Christian: Jesus is God.
Muslim: He is not.

And there go the goalposts. Christians claim Jesus and God were one and same. Muslims claim Jesus is merely a prophet and that he and God are separate entities. That does not alter the fact that Muslims and Christians both worship the God of Abraham.


Edit: Missing word syndrome again.

DarthHelmet86 wrote: I think of myself as intellectually honest and that means accepting I don't know everything and that there is a chance no matter how small that the idea of god while thought up for all the wrong reason might turn out to be right.

Whereas I wait for evidence before speculating about the 'possibility' of some entity. In the case we've been discussing, the entity isn't even well-defined. Perhaps the way to keep open the possibility of an entity is to define it so incoherently that no one can identify what it is you're proposing the possibility of. As for intellectual honesty, my opinion of myself plus two shits will leave me with precisely two shits. You really could profit from re-examining this notion of the possibility of the existence of entities of pure imagination unconnected to any observable aspect of the universe, which is what deities amount to.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I asked you to show me how I could reject an idea and you failed, it in no way differed from the way I accept an idea and find a lack of evidence for it in reality.

You're quite wrong there, my friend, because I have copiously explained to you my reasons for rejecting the inventions of deities as entirely fanciful products of imagination of very ignorant people, unconnected to any aspect of the universe that we have not re-examined thoroughly to show that there's no place for deities to hide there. Your feeble pleading has 'god of the gaps' written all over it, except that you water it down to a 'possibility'. You're welcome to that wibble, and may it ensure you of good health.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:But until that evidence is presented to me I lack a belief in a god or gods, if it ever is presented I will change my opinion and gain a belief.

But as I hope you know, deities are supernatural entities, and evidence for themselves is not in the cards for them, because evidence is strictly of the empirical sort. The idea of evidence for supernatural entities is incoherent. What you're holding the door open for is a personal revelation that could send you back to the bosom of the church, wherein you would find, as so many have, that their excursion into atheism was delusional for them. Or so they say.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:You are the one talking about ancient people and what they did, I didn't bring it into the conversation.

I had good reasons for broaching the subject, because the ignorance of the goat-roasters, relative to what we've found out since then, is prodigious indeed.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I have thought about my atheism a lot, I think about it all the time actually in the regard that I am always looking at what people claim to be evidence for a god or gods and seeing if it stands up...it doesn't.

That's because you're busily reciting the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" mantra in order not to rule out the possibility of the existence of deities.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:You don't have an argument Cito.

You've seen what I have, and have failed to recognise what it is telling you. You, on the other hand, have offered no reasons to give the merest of consideration to the campfire tales of ignorant goat roasters, other than that, no matter how far out an idea seems, if it was created by people, well, it just might be about something really-o, truly-o, summoned up with a dollop of the special sauce.

BlackBart wrote:That does not alter the fact that Muslims both worship the God of Abraham.

Both of them, eh? That's encouraging news. Some reports have Muslims numbering near the one billion mark, but those figures must have been inflated in order to soothe the egos of the faithful. Both of them.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BlackBart wrote:That does not alter the fact that Muslims both worship the God of Abraham.

Both of them, eh? That's encouraging news. Some reports have Muslims numbering near the one billion mark, but those figures must have been inflated in order to soothe the egos of the faithful. Both of them.

I'll have my typist sacked forthwith.

BlackBart wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BlackBart wrote:That does not alter the fact that Muslims both worship the God of Abraham.

Both of them, eh? That's encouraging news. Some reports have Muslims numbering near the one billion mark, but those figures must have been inflated in order to soothe the egos of the faithful. Both of them.

I'll have my typist sacked forthwith.

It was a typoe, and immensely more interesting than hearing another chorus trying to define the word 'atheist'. It's clear from the perennial appearance of this theme that labeling is far more important to some atheists than is having a good guffaw at theism. I accept that it must sting for some former theists to see after the fact what an embarrassing situation theism puts one in. Everyone makes mistakes. Evne tpyists.

Thguoht wrote:In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins encourages atheists to be proud and not apologetic about being atheists. Are you proud or not about being an atheist?

It's just a label describing my state of not accepting claims about the existence of so-called deities. There's nothing to be proud or apologetic about. It is simply accurate. Ideally, no label should be necessary, but we don't live in that world.

@quas:

First off there is no prefix of the single letter i- you must choose one of the following in-, il-, ir-, im- depending on the first letter of the root word; ir- for words beginning with r, il- for words beginning with l, im- for words beginning with m or p, and in- for words beginning with all the other letters.

So, if you want to use your example of Illiterate you actually need to make your i-theist in-theist. We also have the prefix a- which pretty much means the same thing as the in- prefix; not, without, or opposite of. So, in-theist, even if it was a real word, and atheist mean very much the same thing.

But if we take an example of a word such as moral, which can come after one of the i prefixes or after the a- prefix we see a slight difference where amoral means without morals and/or not concerned with morals, and immoral means going against what is considered moral. So, we have two choices, either say that in-theist would mean going against theism or it simply means without theism. If it means going against theism then it could hardly be used to describe an infant just as immoral can't be used to describe an infant. Infants are amoral not immoral, because they are unaware of morals, and being unaware of theism they are atheist.

That said, I see no reason the label rocks, trees, fish, monkeys, or infants as atheist. It would be practically meaningless. But if it came down to a choice between theist or atheist, atheist would be the more accurate term.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

I've always had a hard time with this from Dawkins and Dennett. On one hand it seems to make sense, but on the other it doesn't.

It"s a nice sound byte I guess, but it doesn't really say anything meaningful. I've always thought that atheist meant not having a belief in any god, which wouldn't mesh very well with believing in one god and not others.

Oldskeptic wrote:

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

I've always had a hard time with this from Dawkins and Dennett. On one hand it seems to make sense, but on the other it doesn't.

It"s a nice sound byte I guess, but it doesn't really say anything meaningful. I've always thought that atheist meant not having a belief in any god, which wouldn't mesh very well with believing in one god and not others.

I think it is meant as just that, a little sound byte that can worm its way into a theists ears and maybe trigger something else. I also think it is meant to be a much shorter version of the argument that when a theist understands why they don't belief in other gods they will also understand why atheists don't belief in theirs. This of course implies that there is a logical reason that they don't belief in other gods and not just "I was raised a Christian and all the rest are just wrong about who God is".


Cito I am sorry but I have found your arguments to be not compelling at all. You don't find mine compelling either, so instead of going round and round I am just going to drop it.

Oldskeptic wrote:So, if you want to use your example of Illiterate you actually need to make your i-theist in-theist.

Now that you mention it, the word 'intheist' seems familiar. I may have read someone proposing the usage of that word.

Infants are amoral not immoral, because they are unaware of morals, and being unaware of theism they are atheist.

That said, I see no reason the label rocks, trees, fish, monkeys, or infants as atheist. It would be practically meaningless. But if it came down to a choice between theist or atheist, atheist would be the more accurate term.

Which is why we need to use the word 'intheist' to refer to infants. Besides that, there is probably one more *practical* reason to use the word 'intheist': to describe the beliefs of adults who are unaware of theism. Buddhists probably qualify as intheists. People who happen to grew up in an environment that's free from religious influence and have a high probability of being easily converted to theism should they come across the Ray Comfort type are definitely intheists. You can also say that a Christian is intheistic to Hindu gods. See how that would clear up a lot of confusion?

BlackBart wrote:

quas wrote:Christian: Jesus is God.
Muslim: He is not.

And there go the goalposts. Christians claim Jesus and God were one and same. Muslims claim Jesus is merely a prophet and that he and God are separate entities. That does not alter the fact that Muslims and Christians both worship the God of Abraham.


Edit: Missing word syndrome again.

That matters how? Muslims and Christians are as completely irreconcilable as ever. They have vastly different religious practices: praying times, praying rituals, dietary restrictions, etc. They might as well be worshiping totally different gods since both of them consider each other as infidels. Even Muslims and Jews with more similar religious practices and beliefs (circumcision, no eating pork, doesn't believe that Jesus is divine, etc.) don't mix very well at all.