Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
I'm not an atheist
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Perhaps not.Someone at one stage thought about it enough to say I am 'A-Theist'.
Perhaps at some stage someone decided, "God doesn't exist", and his religious friend, unable to comprehend this, "No religious belief" thing, came up with a title to confer upon him.
However, that's only because you have otherwise had a label previously conferred upon you. So in order to otherwise discard this label, someone indeed has to have gone through the thought process. If a person wasn't given any religious tag from birth, you can bet they wouldn't even consider what "tag" to give themselves. The notion of applying a tag to nothing is preposterous, but in most countries it has to be done, purely because the de facto tag is one of the major religions.However, to label oneself an atheist means that you have gone through a though process which comes out the other side with a label.
In this country, the biggest thing I've found is that saying, "I'm not member of any religious organisation, I don't subscribe to any religious beliefs thus far put forward" has people looking at you with two heads. Some people simply won't accept this as an answer. So I can see how atheists may give themselves a label purely to satisfy the masses, all the while not actually giving it any particular thought.
Children are born atheist - they have no system of belief. They have barely any awareness, if any at all, so the idea that person believes in a God at birth is laughable. Yet the suggestion is met with derison. How so?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I see what you're trying to say now, however even that line paints an atheist as someone who differs from the norm.Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Society suggests that there *must* be two camps - that is, you either believe there is a God or you believe there isn't a God. Religious people in particular seem unable to comprehend the third possible position - someone who has never even considered the concept of God. Babies and children fall into this grouping.
I would say that "atheism" is an appropriate label for this group purely on the basis that (in my mind), atheism is not about rejecting or denying God (how can you reject or deny something that doesn't exist), rather it's about the absence of any deity in your everyday life.
If the concept of a deity has never occured to a person, then logically they fall into this grouping.
I have never considered atheism to be a set of beliefs, rather a total absence of any belief (which again would include those who don't understand the concept of belief), but I accept your argument particularly in terms of how strongly some people seem to feel about their atheism 0 -
-
-
I see what you're trying to say now, however even that line paints an atheist as someone who differs from the norm.
Society suggests that there *must* be two camps - that is, you either believe there is a God or you believe there isn't a God. Religious people in particular seem unable to comprehend the third possible position - someone who has never even considered the concept of God. Babies and children fall into this grouping.
I would say that "atheism" is an appropriate label for this group purely on the basis that (in my mind), atheism is not about rejecting or denying God (how can you reject or deny something that doesn't exist), rather it's about the absence of any deity in your everyday life.
If the concept of a deity has never occured to a person, then logically they fall into this grouping.
I have never considered atheism to be a set of beliefs, rather a total absence of any belief (which again would include those who don't understand the concept of belief), but I accept your argument particularly in terms of how strongly some people seem to feel about their atheism
I'd have to say, there certainly does not seem to consensus on the word anyway. It seems to be different depending on who you talk to. Much like Christianity, Islam etc, Ironically enough.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Actually my point was it doesn't matter whether people choose to call themselves mammals or not - they are - regardless of how little thought they have given the matter.
Just like people who fit the belief criteria for atheism.
Not following you here
Regarding "contradicting the history of humanity", you make it sound like humanity was united in their belief of a single god (or set of gods) rather than a jumble of contradictory ones. Humanity's belief in thousands of different deities it's own contradiction!
I certainly didn't mean to present that notion. The point I'm making is that, throughout the ages, Atheism certainly doesn't seem to be natural to mankind.0 -
-
-
I think I get what Jimi is trying to say. Everyone (I hope) can calm down a little bit. He's not saying that we're contradicting what actually happened. It would seem in the point he's trying to make that he's not actually making any judgement of whether or not atheism and a disbelief in the supernatural is right or wrong.
When he says "Man's history is full of the supernatural" and that we are "contradicting" this history, he (again I think) just means that man's history is full of belief in and acceptance of the supernatural. We durty heathens are disagreeing with the opinions of a vast majority of our ancestors. Please note, I also don't think that for Jimi's point it matters what god, what supernatural phenomenon or even how many gods our ancestors accepted, merely that they believed something and we don't at all, at all.
I can see the point he's trying to make, it is a little odd that all us genius folk who arrived at our position for whatever reason but from (in general) a starting point of belief (again, no lynchings please, I know we weren't born believing but most of us here had that changed pretty darn quick) are described using the same word as the little mite who was lucky enough not to fall to the evils of theism. We believe the same thing as this kiddy but because that child had no exposure to religiosity our reasons are generally different. I think this is part of the reason the term bight is sometimes used.
For the record, I'm just a humble atheist. If someone wants to call me something else - and many do
-that's their choice but sticks and stones and all that. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I see what you're trying to say now, however even that line paints an atheist as someone who differs from the norm.
but looking back in time, and still in the present time, the norm has been a belief in some form of god or gods. So atheism in this way, does differ from the norm. On this point i'm not trying to argue who's right or wrong, just that atheism is not a natural state, but the conclusion of a thought process.Society suggests that there *must* be two camps - that is, you either believe there is a God or you believe there isn't a God. Religious people in particular seem unable to comprehend the third possible position - someone who has never even considered the concept of God. Babies and children fall into this grouping.
A baby, I agree with, but a child? I disagree. i think the moment a person begins to think about where things came from etc, it enters the realm of gods etc. Although as i said, i don't think we have evidence of a child never being exposed to people, civilisation etc. So to say one way or the other would be to speculate IMO. The fact is, from the moment a child is born, its exposed to the society it lives in.I would say that "atheism" is an appropriate label for this group purely on the basis that (in my mind), atheism is not about rejecting or denying God (how can you reject or deny something that doesn't exist), rather it's about the absence of any deity in your everyday life.
If the concept of a deity has never occured to a person, then logically they fall into this grouping.
Again, i think this is rhetorical, and not actually an accurate definition of Atheism as we know it. I suppose If you are saying atheism can mean the absolute ignorance of the concept of god, then giving it a title would be like giving a title to someone who is totally ignorant of the idea of there being a turtle holding up the earth. You see where I'm coming from?I have never considered atheism to be a set of beliefs, rather a total absence of any belief (which again would include those who don't understand the concept of belief), but I accept your argument particularly in terms of how strongly some people seem to feel about their atheism
i just realised this is my second reply to this post:o Its a bit more detailed though. to reiterate though, among its adhearents, there does not sem to be a common meaning to 'Atheist'.0
Advertisement