Spirituality
13 Jul 13
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by apathistI would think an infant would be UNtheistic not Atheistic. You have to have conscious thoughts about the matter first I would think,to make a stance one way or the other. Just like Chimps, I would think they would be Untheistic or say, chipmunks and so forth.
A decent (and aptly titled) book for those who think atheism is not a belief or that babies are atheist may be Atheism for Dummies, Dale McGowan copyright 2013. Not a word about babies or "implicit atheism"; a lot of words about how atheism is a reaction or response to theism.
Another example (they are so easy to find) from The Dictionary of Atheism, Ske ...[text shortened]... An attitude of skepticism towards claims of the existence of any sort of God or gods.
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThe standard term is non-theist.
I would think an infant would be UNtheistic not Atheistic. You have to have conscious thoughts about the matter first I would think,to make a stance one way or the other. Just like Chimps, I would think they would be Untheistic or say, chipmunks and so forth.
28 Aug 13
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIs it standard, DT? I don't object--except that I used to use non-theist to alliterate better with non-aligned, non-supernaturalist, non-dualist (as well as to make a subtle distinction between, say, Buddhists and more "secular" atheists.
The standard term is non-theist.
_________________________________________
At the same time, I think LJ's comments on page 4 of this thread were apt:
Rocks are not cognizers. So, would it satisfy you that one makes it explicit that the term atheism is predicated unto cognizers? One would have thought that would already have been clear enough anyway. So, there is no threat here that atheism is predicated unto rocks and whatnot. Babies could still be viewed as atheists in some non-explicit form since babies are at least rudimentary cognizers, but so what?
I subsequently suggested that we just specify that we're talking about "considered" atheism. In sum, it seems that we're now parsing marginally at the margins.
28 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIf we altered the term from the Greek to the Latin root, we could say "UnDeist. Then we could call them "Undies". 🙂
I would think an infant would be UNtheistic not Atheistic. You have to have conscious thoughts about the matter first I would think,to make a stance one way or the other. Just like Chimps, I would think they would be Untheistic or say, chipmunks and so forth.
[Of course, those who are commonly identified as "deists", with a philosophical distinction from "theists", might object . . . .]
28 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI thought it was, I've seen it used elsewhere, although given that some call those I label as non-theists implicit atheists maybe you are right. It's just untheist sounds like a follower of Unthe: goddess of dubious arguments. My conception of the term non-theist includes entities unable to have a conscious preference in the matter, so a rock is a perfectly good non-theist. I think to qualify as agnostic or atheist some choice has to have been made, whereas I'm using non-theist as a (hopefully neutral) term to include what some call implicit atheists.
Is it standard, DT? I don't object--except that I used to use non-theist to alliterate better with non-aligned, non-supernaturalist, non-dualist (as well as to make a subtle distinction between, say, Buddhists and more "secular" atheists.
_________________________________________
At the same time, I think LJ's comments on page 4 of this thread were ap considered" atheism. In sum, it seems that we're now parsing marginally at the margins.
28 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdYou are left with between the two nothing to tell them apart with, even
It seems there are two possibilities here:
1. The putative skeptic is dishonest, and has a secret agenda to reject “everything” without disclosing her position—such a person is not really a skeptic.
2. The putative skeptic has rejected all arguments made thus far, and (a) does not know what other arguments might be made and/or (b) doubts that there a ...[text shortened]... nce, even if she doubts that an affirmative judgment is likely based on arguments made thus far.
the two different people could both hold to be one or the other in word and
act out in the other fashion. Bottom line for both is that they reject any
positive position on belief on the topic of God or gods which is a choice no
matter what side of that fence you are painting they are on, that they have
in common which has been my point to you from day one, it does not
matter if they are willing to change sides or pick one, the fact that they
need to do either puts them all in the same boat.
Kelly
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt's just untheist sounds like a follower of Unthe: goddess of dubious arguments.
I thought it was, I've seen it used elsewhere, although given that some call those I label as non-theists implicit atheists maybe you are right. It's just untheist sounds like a follower of Unthe: goddess of dubious arguments. My conception of the term non-theist includes entities unable to have a conscious preference in the matter, so a rock is a perf ...[text shortened]... m using non-theist as a (hopefully neutral) term to include what some call implicit atheists.
I didn’t know that! As I say, I really don’t object. 🙂 And I am willing to give up my fondness for alliteration for clear distinctions. (Well, maybe . . .)
28 Aug 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are left with between the two nothing to tell them apart with . . .
You are left with between the two nothing to tell them apart with, even
the two different people could both hold to be one or the other in word and
act out in the other fashion. Bottom line for both is that they reject any
positive position on belief on the topic of God or gods which is a choice no
matter what side of that fence you are painting they ar ...[text shortened]... sides or pick one, the fact that they
need to do either puts them all in the same boat.
Kelly
True. But I would rather credit my interlocuter with being honest, absent clear evidence to the contrary (you know, over the years, how few times I have ever accused the other of being dishonest). If you can’t tell them apart, then you can at least accept that they are two distinct positions (one honest, one not), even if you can’t be sure in a given case—and I don’t know how one could prove themselves on that score. The fact that my arguments (or somebody else’s, for that matter) don’t appear satisfactory is no reason to assume that the other is being dishonest. An honest skeptic and a dishonest "skeptic" are not really in the same boat, except with regard to your (or my) inability to tell them apart. So why would you (or I) want to put them there?
29 Aug 13
I am finding it interesting how many people object to the use of the word 'atheist' to mean 'anyone who is not a theist, including babies'. I strongly suspect that the objectors incorrectly believe that a definition can win an argument ie they think accepting such a definition leaves them open to attack by some further argument.
I find this remarkable in that I find it obvious that a definition can not win an argument, and it would be trivial to simply make up a new word with the above meaning and start using that label for myself - something a number of posters have done.
So, anyone who still objects to my usage of the word 'atheist', please don't refer to me as atheist any more as I do not fit your definition, instead, you may call me an 'infidel' with the meaning 'without faith in your religion, whatever religion that happens to be'.
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by vistesdWe still talking about Atheism? Being a skeptic can float in every camp
[b]You are left with between the two nothing to tell them apart with . . .
True. But I would rather credit my interlocuter with being honest, absent clear evidence to the contrary (you know, over the years, how few times I have ever accused the other of being dishonest). If you can’t tell them apart, then you can at least accept that they are two di ...[text shortened]... to your (or my) inability to tell them apart. So why would you (or I) want to put them there?[/b]
when it comes to God or gods or about a vast array of topics. The notion
that there isn't one or any be it an honest belief or not doesn't change the
fact that we are talking about a notion there isn't one no matter what
side of the honest scale we find ourselves in. Can you give me an
example where within Atheism God or gods are accepted as being a very
real part of reality a part from human imagination?
Kelly
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by KellyJayHow can a belief be dishonest? What I believe might not be true, but that's not the same as dishonest. If I lie to further my side of a debate regarding the belief it would be dishonest, but it is I and not the belief that is being dishonest.
We still talking about Atheism? Being a skeptic can float in every camp
when it comes to God or gods or about a vast array of topics. The notion
that there isn't one or any be it an honest belief or not doesn't change the
fact that we are talking about a notion there isn't one no matter what
side of the honest scale we find ourselves in. Can you give me ...[text shortened]... gods are accepted as being a very
real part of reality a part from human imagination?
Kelly
Given that atheists believe there aren't Gods then they are hardly going to accept them as a real part of the universe. With agnostics it is different, the central issue is proof, so either God exists and is real or "he" doesn't. A non-theist (including new born babies and rocks) hasn't got an opinion.
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtA belief will not be dishonest, unless your dishonest about the belief!
How can a belief be dishonest? What I believe might not be true, but that's not the same as dishonest. If I lie to further my side of a debate regarding the belief it would be dishonest, but it is I and not the belief that is being dishonest.
Given that atheists believe there aren't Gods then they are hardly going to accept them as a real part of th ...[text shortened]... r "he" doesn't. A non-theist (including new born babies and rocks) hasn't got an opinion.
The discussion was about if someone claims they have an open mind
or not, are you a true skeptic who could change your mind, or are you
someone who claims they could when in fact they never will no matter
what! If you want to say Atheist have the same brain power or notions
a rock or new born has okay, but to me that is a bit belittling.
Kelly
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThought"Given that atheists believe there aren't Gods then they are hardly going to accept them as a real part of the universe."
How can a belief be dishonest? What I believe might not be true, but that's not the same as dishonest. If I lie to further my side of a debate regarding the belief it would be dishonest, but it is I and not the belief that is being dishonest.
Given that atheists believe there aren't Gods then they are hardly going to accept them as a real part of th ...[text shortened]... r "he" doesn't. A non-theist (including new born babies and rocks) hasn't got an opinion.
I agree with this, and have said that because of this an Atheist will not
accept anything as evidence towards accepting God or gods are real,
what will happen instead there will always be a natural event/cause that
can explain everything away. This was met with some disagreement.
Kelly
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheaddeja-vu
So, anyone who still objects to my usage of the word 'atheist', please don't refer to me as atheist any more as I do not fit your definition, instead, you may call me an 'infidel' with the meaning 'without faith in your religion, whatever religion that happens to be'.
I got sick amd tired of this argument so changed my profile to
"infidel" some time back.
I occasionally get questions as to what 'infidel' means ............
I think the crux of this argument is the import that one gives to
the definition as applied to oneself.
My atheism is very much passive insomuch as I do not actively
think about the existence of god or gods - its a non-sensical
debate to me.
The analogous statement: "My hobby is not collecting stamps"
very much sums up my position on religion.
29 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIt was met with disagreement because no such atheists actually exist. Yes, most people who are skeptical about the existence of God/gods will look for naturalistic explanations first, but this does not translate into '[they] will not accept anything'.
I agree with this, and have said that because of this an Atheist will not
accept anything as evidence towards accepting God or gods are real,
what will happen instead there will always be a natural event/cause that
can explain everything away. This was met with some disagreement.
If your definition of 'atheist' is 'someone who will not accept anything as evidence for God/gods' then do not call me an atheist because I do not fit that definition.