Thread: Young atheists Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025902
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Given that some of my children have become atheists, this article has given me a lot to think about.

People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I read this the other day, from a Facebook link. Integrity is key, it seems, and half-heartedness is deadly poison...
quote:
Sincerity does not trump truth. After all, one can be sincerely wrong. But sincerity is indispensable to any truth we wish others to believe. There is something winsome, even irresistible, about a life lived with conviction.
As for the point that many young atheists have had a Christian upbringing, I guess maybe the Christian upbringing gives them something to push against. Those who are doubtful of the existence of God but don't have much of a Christian upbringing probably would just describe themselves as agnostic or not bothered. That's my guess...
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
The thoughts on proselytizing are interesting, considering that I've heard the opposite from most British atheists of the same age. Maybe a pond difference?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Sounds like the atheist version of one of those "Anthropology of Young People" articles that pop up every so often, expressing confused shock at revelations like "they enjoy ice cream on hot days" or "they don't like getting poked in the eye with a sharp stick".

For example:

quote:
They had attended church

Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.
Translation: strangely, the largest number of American atheists come from the largest American demographic group!

Now I appreciate that Mr. Taunton spent a good deal of effort interviewing atheists and has to pitch his findings as some kind of startling, unexpected revelation, but I'm not sure there's any way to make the idea that "the teenage years are formative" seem like some unexpected insight.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Firstly, ALL children are born atheists. People only become theists as a result of their learning of God.

But to answer your question, I am not a bit surprised that there should be a correlation between positive (and/or militant) atheism and apostasy. It's reactionary. Speaking from personal experience, I feel an inclination to react against what as a critical adult I see as the negative aspects of my experience of religion as a child, and I think this must be pretty common.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
I wonder if we read the same article, because I got just the opposite impression. The header "The mission and message of their churches was vague" is mentioned early on, and while the superficiality of the church's answers could be a criticism of either liberal or conservative beliefs, "They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously" again suggests that this doesn't describe a rejection of fundamentalism, but a rejection of wishy-washy liberalism. But I strongly suspect that this reflects the author's biases as much as anything else.

He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason. Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications. But he's trying to draw a target and discredit these deconversion stories (despite his claim not to have an agenda) by identifying some small hint of emotion in the process.

Maybe there's some interesting detail in the actual study (if it's worthy of such a name, and I see nothing in this article to conclude that it is), but I could take any point he presents here in his trying-to-look-fair flavour of spin, and turn it round so that it makes a very different point from the one he appears to be aiming for.
 
Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Given that some of my children have become atheists, this article has given me a lot to think about.

People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
It's bad form to link to other sites but this particular thread was originally titled 'Why are atheists so stupid?' and made me smile numerous times.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Firstly, ALL children are born atheists. People only become theists as a result of their learning of God.

But to answer your question, I am not a bit surprised that there should be a correlation between positive (and/or militant) atheism and apostasy. It's reactionary. Speaking from personal experience, I feel an inclination to react against what as a critical adult I see as the negative aspects of my experience of religion as a child, and I think this must be pretty common.
Surely all children are born agnostic? Atheism is definitely not believing in God, I'm not sure newborn babies really have an opinion on Him.
 
Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications.
You really believe this?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
I wonder if we read the same article, because I got just the opposite impression. The header "The mission and message of their churches was vague" is mentioned early on, and while the superficiality of the church's answers could be a criticism of either liberal or conservative beliefs, "They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously" again suggests that this doesn't describe a rejection of fundamentalism, but a rejection of wishy-washy liberalism. But I strongly suspect that this reflects the author's biases as much as anything else.

He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason. Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications. But he's trying to draw a target and discredit these deconversion stories (despite his claim not to have an agenda) by identifying some small hint of emotion in the process.

Maybe there's some interesting detail in the actual study (if it's worthy of such a name, and I see nothing in this article to conclude that it is), but I could take any point he presents here in his trying-to-look-fair flavour of spin, and turn it round so that it makes a very different point from the one he appears to be aiming for.
Liberalism doesn't have to be wishy-washy - I am a liberal but take the Bible extremely seriously. Studious ministers exist in all kinds of denominations. At the same time, I have sat through countless vague sermons from conservative evangelicals.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Firstly, ALL children are born atheists. People only become theists as a result of their learning of God.

But to answer your question, I am not a bit surprised that there should be a correlation between positive (and/or militant) atheism and apostasy. It's reactionary. Speaking from personal experience, I feel an inclination to react against what as a critical adult I see as the negative aspects of my experience of religion as a child, and I think this must be pretty common.
Frag I'm on an iPad a can't muck around with coding. I just wondered how you knew that babies are born atheists? I can't remember my infancy very well but all I got out of my two babies was "Ga, Ga, ga ." They could be born with an innate sense of spirituality.

Could there be a possibility of us being born knowing God (or knowing in the womb) and then forgetting?

On the other hand teenagers will react and test out what ever we teach them. Rightly so; if they are to develop skills to work out what is true isn't or it doesn't matter in the long run when their favourite boy band break up.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason.
Not entirely. From the article:

quote:
The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one

With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well.
Note Taunton doesn't say his interviewees became atheists for emotional reasons, just that emotion was involved as well as rational thought. Of course, Taunton structures his writing in such a way to give the impression (successfully, if this thread is any indication) that abandoning a previously held religious faith is a purely emotional decision.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
I wonder if we read the same article, because I got just the opposite impression. The header "The mission and message of their churches was vague" is mentioned early on, and while the superficiality of the church's answers could be a criticism of either liberal or conservative beliefs, "They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously" again suggests that this doesn't describe a rejection of fundamentalism, but a rejection of wishy-washy liberalism. But I strongly suspect that this reflects the author's biases as much as anything else.
I was thinking of the quote about not respecting anyone who doesn't prostelytize. The way I read that section, that sort of thing came from others too.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Liberalism doesn't have to be wishy-washy - I am a liberal but take the Bible extremely seriously. Studious ministers exist in all kinds of denominations. At the same time, I have sat through countless vague sermons from conservative evangelicals.
Indeed, but that's the message I take from this article, freely paraphrasing his apparent thought process. Take a look at his big conclusions about atheists:


It's arguably coded, but it doesn't take Alan Turing to decrypt it.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications.
You really believe this?
Of course. In the face of a mountain of experimental evidence, why would I not? The precise value assigned to "fundamentally" is probably up for grabs, but the principle has been demonstrated ad nauseam.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason.
Not entirely. From the article:

quote:
The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one

With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well.
Note Taunton doesn't say his interviewees became atheists for emotional reasons, just that emotion was involved as well as rational thought. Of course, Taunton structures his writing in such a way to give the impression (successfully, if this thread is any indication) that abandoning a previously held religious faith is a purely emotional decision.
As I said, he emphasises the emotion, sticking it in the header. He has an axe to grind, and he grinds it with enthusiasm. A careful reading shows the CYA caveats, but this presentation reveals his agenda very clearly.

(Sorry for the triple-post. Gwai, I don't know what to make of the comments about respect for non-preachers, because so much hinges on how it's being presented, but on the face of it, I suspect this is more down to the activist idealism of youth - a sort of "If this is so great, why wouldn't you tell the world, and if not, what's the point?")
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I think it's likely that those who were brought up without any church attendance or religious teaching (other than:these are the world's religions) may be pretty disinterested and just getting on with their lives without feeling strongly one way or the other.

If children are brought up with a Christian faith, they will have been given views of it and of God which they might jettison as they begin to think for themselves. If there is no-one there to help them to continue to grow in understanding for themselves, to explain that this doesn't mean that the religion is false or that God doesn't exist, someone whose faith is open and authentic, they may fall away never to return. As someone above said, they may continue to hold on to the God image they decided was false and assume that believers see God in the same way.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Could there be a possibility of us being born knowing God (or knowing in the womb) and then forgetting?
Nope, absolutely no possibility.

And neonates are not agnostic on the existence of gods- to be so requires a degree of understanding (specifically, that they do not know of the existence or nonexistence of gods) that they cannot have. We are all born atheists in the 'weak atheist' class, i.e., we have no belief in gods.
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Liberalism doesn't have to be wishy-washy - I am a liberal but take the Bible extremely seriously. Studious ministers exist in all kinds of denominations. At the same time, I have sat through countless vague sermons from conservative evangelicals.
Indeed, but that's the message I take from this article, freely paraphrasing his apparent thought process. Take a look at his big conclusions about atheists:


It's arguably coded, but it doesn't take Alan Turing to decrypt it.
I agree, it's pretty blatant. Liberals are to blame for the young 'settling for' atheism. I also thought I detected a plausibly deniable nudge towards 'male headship'. The 'rock star' (really?) pastor replaced by a woman who didn't seem to know her Bible. The father whose abusiveness caused his daughter's atheism.

[ 19. June 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
And neonates are not agnostic on the existence of gods- to be so requires a degree of understanding (specifically, that they do not know of the existence or nonexistence of gods) that they cannot have. We are all born atheists in the 'weak atheist' class, i.e., we have no belief in gods.
I think it's hard to argue with this, but for most people the word 'atheist' means something rather stronger, i.e. an active rejection of belief in god(s). So to describe babies and toddlers as atheistic makes little sense, ISTM.
 
Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Integrity is key, it seems, and half-heartedness is deadly poison...
Even more than half-heartedness, hypocrisy can push young (and old) people away. Christians will say that every word of the Bible is true and then pick and choose which bits they like.

Young people will read the Bible and see that Jesus was against judgmentalism and self-righteousness, then look around and see that many of these self-described Christians are considerably more judgmental and self-righteous than the general population.

This can be particularly offensive to teenagers, who tend to feel that they are constantly being judged on everything they think or do.

When I was younger, the disconnect between what Jesus taught and what Christians actually do (and believe) deeply offended my youthful idealism and I was vehemently anti-Christian for years.

I don't consider myself an Atheist, but I believe that true Christianity is rarely practiced in any Church or denomination. As one university student said to me, there's too much hating gays and not enough hating greed.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
It is really hard to opt for a radical discipleship in most churches. A young person who said they want to sell everything and give it to the poor and why isn't everyone one else doing would probably be told to calm down and get over that phase. The theological reasons might be a bit different depending on the political stripe of the particular church. The lack of a distinctive prophetic reaction to the world is probably the biggest turn off when there is very little substantial difference between the Church and its host culture.

@ Yorick. I still think that you make an assertion, on something that cannot be known for sure, admitably.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
This is a group of young atheists who were selected because they belong to support groups for atheism and want to engage with Christians to discuss it.

I suspect there are many other atheists who don't bother with either. There's no need for a support group if you're unchallenged in your life.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Maybe it's just me, but I don't particularly worry about adolescents becoming atheists. That seems to me to be a perfectly normal part of a healthy spiritual development -- as children, they believe whatever their parents believe. As they start to develop their own identity, they reject much of what their parents believe. When they get beyond that, they readopt much of what their parents believe, but do so because it fits them, not because they hadn't thought about it. While it is true that not everyone who rejects the faith of their parents returns to it later, it is also true that for many people that is the only path forward to their own faith.

All the hand-wringing in the article about leaders who are insufficiently authentic in their faith is just so much bloviating. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

[ 19. June 2013, 18:20: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I went through an atheist period in my life. Now that I think about it - it was at a time when I was very unhappy. I think I felt betrayed.

Plus the most public representative of the faith around at the time was a deeply unpleasant man whom I did not trust.

[ 19. June 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Pedant alert/

It's a pity the David Hume anecdote is made-up and seems to appear no earlier than 1917 in the "Homiletic Review". There is however a more plausible Hume quote on Whitefield in a 1740 letter:

Sarah Edwards, wife of Jonathan Edwards, to her brother, James

quote:
And he speaks so easily, without any apparent effort. You remember that David Hume thought it was worth going twenty miles to hear him speak; and Garrick said, 'He could move men to tears or make them tremble by his simple intonations in pronouncing the word Mesopotamia.'
But it's more a comment on eloquence than belief.

cheers,
L
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Pedant alert/

It's a pity the David Hume anecdote is made-up and seems to appear no earlier than 1917 in the "Homiletic Review".
Thanks for mentioning this. I think it's very important we know when these things have been cooked up, especially when some advocate an evangelism based on such slurps of chicken soup for the proselytiser's soul.

Funnily enough, 'Sincerity does not trump truth. After all, one can be sincerely wrong' is almost an exact quote from multi-level marketing guru Jim Rohn.

[ 19. June 2013, 20:08: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I just read this, which seems relevant.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
There's something about fundamentalism that makes people very emotionally attached to the purity of their logic. Salvation by doctrine makes being rational (according to certain rationales) a matter of life and death.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
I’m not sure if the thoughts of a British, mid-sixties, retiree who left school at sixteen because it was boring are appropriate – but you asked.

They had attended church – twice on Sunday (choirboy until age twelve) with sunday school/bible study group in the afternoon to keep me out of mischief. I’m a PK.

The mission and message of their churches was vague "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." Worse – it was non-existent. That is to say – there were some very good people in the church but, as with the bastards, their proportion seemed similar to those outside the church.

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions if there were difficult questions they were sinful/satanically inspired and risibly simple dogma was all the answer anyone needed.

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously Both my parents took the bible seriously – but my mother also took it literally (creation in 6 consecutive periods of 24 hours through to the end of revelation).

Ages 14-17 were decisive Yup

The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one I wouldn’t say embrace – more like belief just wore out and didn’t need replacing. (I think my father privately intervened to prevent too many heavy reactions from my mother).

The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism In 1960s? and I don’t regard it as conversion, more a transition.

these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote Michael: "Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven't seen too much of that." Yes that’s me - to a T. – except I’m old/ugly/salesman enough to be honest and say I’ve never seen that – seen people’s lives change, with and without religion, but never simply because of Christianity (remembering that this was when I was a teenager – it always seemed to include a member of the opposite sex who attended church).
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Atheism is definitely not believing in God

No – it isn’t. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more and nothing less.

Many atheists additionally doubt the existence of any god(s) and are certain that particular current and historic definitions are logically wrong, but that is disbelief rather than unbelief; often referred to as Atheism+ - but it’s not Atheism
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications.
You really believe this?

Can’t say I like the idea but try reading Incognito – ISBN 978 1 84767 940 6 and Free Will – ISBN 978 1 4516 8340 0 / e-book 978 1 4516 8347 9 . Check out the experimental evidence – personally I’d be happy for you to prove them wrong.

 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
Another bit on the Hume anecdote is something from The Monthly Mirror in 1808 (entitled "Anecdote" and submitted by Impartialitas). This is still some 30 years after Hume's death.

quote:
An intimate friend of the celebrated Hume asked him what he thought of Mr Whitfield's preaching for he had listened to the latter part of one of his sermons at Edinburgh He is Sir said Mr Hume the most ingenious preacher I ever heard it is worth while to go twenty miles to hear him He then repeated a passage towards the close of the discourse which he had heard After a solemn pause he thus addressed his numerous audience The attendant angel is just about to leave the threshold and ascend to heaven And shall he ascend and not bear with him the news of one sinner among all this multitude reclaimed from the error of his ways. To give the greater effect to this exclamation he stamped with his foot lifted up his hands and eyes to heaven and with gushing tears cried aloud stop Gabriel stop Gabriel stop ere you enter the sacred portals and yet carry with you the news of one sinner converted to God He then in the most simple but energetic language described what he called a saviour's dying love to sinful man so that almost the whole assembly melted into tears This address was accompanied with such animated yet natural action that it surpassed any thing I ever saw or heard in any other preacher
It is amazing how many stories are passed on without checking and this goes for all parts of the religious and political spectra.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Thinking about it, what I find most unsettling about these claims is that they're a carefully digested summary of a study which doesn't even appear to have been completed yet, let alone published - Taunton's Fixed Point Foundation has also published this article, and gave that interesting snippet of information in response to an interested query. I've asked him directly on Twitter about the full study, but I've yet to receive a response.

We have to take his word for it that his summary is both accurate and impartial, because he's drawing all these headlines and conclusions from a dataset that no one else can see for themselves. Given the obvious slant of both his organisation and his article, this rings alarm bells. That's not to accuse him of deliberate distortion (although it can't be ruled out), but the reason why it's important to publish data and methodology is so that other people can check for themselves rather than relying on your conclusions, especially when the results are subjective, not objective.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Can’t say I like the idea but try reading Incognito – ISBN 978 1 84767 940 6 and Free Will – ISBN 978 1 4516 8340 0 / e-book 978 1 4516 8347 9 . Check out the experimental evidence – personally I’d be happy for you to prove them wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Hugh, you've borked the code here, so I've requoted to clarify, and also to add "The Decisive Moment: How The Brain Makes Up Its Mind" by Jonah Lehrer. But this is a pretty big tangent.
 
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :
 
Like many others here, I see a very heavy bias in the argument and an agenda.

I feel like I am on a journey towards atheism - which, incidentally, scares the crap out of me - but I could identify with very few points. That of course doesn't negate the study, HOWEVER, as we all know there are many ways to approach data - and in this day and age, any good spin doctor can make any data suit their agenda.

The main slant of this article seems to be a rebuke to churches, and laying the blame purely on bad experiences as a cause of atheism. It subtly undermines the scientific, rational aspect of the belief, by linking Phil's "conversion" to his pastor leaving. I wonder if, satisfied that there is no debating these points, this is an alternative tactic for abating the slide of Christians into atheism - "you're only doing it because you're emotionally damaged".

Also - the fact that they are picking people who have responded to an invitation by a Christian organisation, to answer questions about atheism, would imply that, putting aside the fact that the predominant religion in America is Christianity, many of the respondees would be from a Christian background - and seeing that they could share their new beliefs without fear of trying to be "deprogrammed".
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect?
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.

I found the rest of the article quite odd.

Seems to be saying you have to have passionate conviction or else you will lead people to atheism.

And you should passionately try to convert people otherwise you're not really a Christian because you can't possibly believe your religion.

Doesn't seem to give a fig for truth.

I find passionate, sincere, conviction that is aggressively trying to convert me a HUGE turn off.

But then again, my ancestry is British.
 
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 
I was just an antitheist because I thought it was terribly rebellious and contrarian. It turned out I was wrong.
 
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
Are you saying that without the postulation of a god atheism couldn't exist? In which case I would agree with you, of course. However, to link that to people who are atheists largely coming from churched families doesn't make a whole lot of sense; most of the atheists I know here in Britain were brought up in non-religious families. Sure they're not militant about it - but it is what it is. Over time as an idea gains viability the opposing views stand on their own rather than dependent on the original view.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
This is arrant nonsense. You’re talking about ‘strong atheism’ or, more likely, antitheism. Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is the default neutral position, annulled by belief (either that there is a god, or that there is not in the case of strong atheism or antitheism).

We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above. Agnosticism is the position of claiming no knowledge on the issue of whether gods exist. It is prerequisite that a person should have knowledge of what it is that one knows or believes or disbelieves in, so you cannot be described as agnostic, theistic or antitheistic on the existence of gods unless you have some sort of understanding of what a god might actually be. Verily, you cannot be said to be agnostic on the existence of the Blorty Floojamagibbadib in my navel.*

*Well, now you can, obviously, but you couldn’t have before I mentioned Them. You were weakly afloojamagibbadibist before you knew about the possibility of their Blorty existence. Heathen!
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is the default neutral position, annulled by belief (either that there is a god, or that there is not in the case of strong atheism or antitheism).

We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above.
I still think most people use the word 'atheism' to mean 'an active belief that there are no gods', rather than the passive lack of positive belief in god / gods. Am I wrong?
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
No, you're right and they're wrong. If people were more considerate of the terms, I think they might understand atheism and theism better.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, you're right and they're wrong. If people were more considerate of the terms, I think they might understand atheism and theism better.
Just checking I've understood - do you mean I correctly stated how most people use the word 'atheist' but they are using the word incorrectly?

If that's the case, I'd suggest that the meaning of words is, to a large extent, driven by how people actually use those words; so you need to adapt your usage of 'atheist' and related words to reflect how the majority of people use them. Sorry...

Just like how, in English, to brazenly split infinitives hardly gets noticed but 50+ years ago simply to do so would draw sharp comment, I gather. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I have been pushed to the edge of Christianity, though not (yet?) an atheist. This never would have happened had I not married an evangelical. Many evangelicals insist on believing the demonstrably untrue (and no amount of evidence will change them; but if you ask them for evidence, you won't get it), which sets up its adherent to follow two basic paths: full submission to the fantasy or be marginalised by one means or another. That kind of evangelical culture is demonstrable destructive and it sets up all those involved for a considerable fall; and I will be glad when it eats itself. The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.

K.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
[@SCK]

Yes, I understand about common usage determining language, but just as good grammar is important for communicating intended meaning, correct terminology usage saves a lot of misunderstanding. It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.

[ 20. June 2013, 10:01: Message edited by: Yorick ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
Well, that depends on what one means by 'atheist'! Enough of this tangent, though; we understand each other but simply disagree. [Smile]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
In what way? I guess you are positing this non-belief in God because newborns have no beliefs about anything? That being the case, their "natural" non-belief in God hardly adds strength to the atheist case.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Indeed, but I think it illustrates how it is that the ONLY way we can know about gods is by learning about them from other people- not through some other magical process. And people suck.
Which ties in with the OP… When people realise the suckiness of the people who teach them as authorities to believe in god, they tend to react by positively rejecting that authority and belief.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Indeed, but I think it illustrates how it is that the ONLY way we can know about gods is by learning about them from other people- not through some other magical process. And people suck.
Which ties in with the OP… When people realise the suckiness of the people who teach them as authorities to believe in god, they tend to react by positively rejecting that authority and belief.
Do they react the same way about all the other basic beliefs they learn from sucky people? A belief in other minds? A belief in scientific method? A belief in trigonometry? (Which I learned from a particularly sucky individual).

I think the research is very skewed. I think it is probably true that most of us choose our beliefs less rationally than we think. I'm not sure that makes a comment on the rationality of any particular belief system.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
Many young atheists are such due to the failure of churches and Christian communities to speak to them effectively. There was an NPR series on this topic not long ago and there were similar views - church is obsessed with political/sexual issues, church is not authentic, Christians do not behave as if their belief has any transformative effect on them.

I never went atheist but avoided church/God/prayer for about 10 years due to what I felt was a failure of the church I was raised in to properly teach and practice Christianity as I understood it. So I can somewhat relate to these people.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Indeed, but I think it illustrates how it is that the ONLY way we can know about gods is by learning about them from other people- not through some other magical process.
...always assuming that there isn't a god - or at least not one who's interested in communicating with people.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.
Which is very interesting, because the article seems to conclude the exact opposite. Being vague and not giving strong, clear answers based on Biblical values is going to breed an army of mini-Dawkins, apparently.

But one of the many problems with this article is that there's no attempt to create a baseline or any sort of control. What proportion of children are brought up atheist, or in churches that conform to this or that description? How does that compare to the results? Has anyone attempted to check whether atheist converts who were brought up in conservative churches are more likely to still be closeted (or at least not members of an openly atheist group) at college?

I'm starting to think I need to blog about this, but there's almost too much to cover.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Many young atheists are such due to the failure of churches and Christian communities to speak to them effectively. There was an NPR series on this topic not long ago and there were similar views - church is obsessed with political/sexual issues, church is not authentic, Christians do not behave as if their belief has any transformative effect on them.
Indeed, especially your final point. On a more general note, was it Ghandi who said something like 'I like Christ, but I don't like Christians'?
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:


The main slant of this article seems to be a rebuke to churches, and laying the blame purely on bad experiences as a cause of atheism. It subtly undermines the scientific, rational aspect of the belief, by linking Phil's "conversion" to his pastor leaving. I wonder if, satisfied that there is no debating these points, this is an alternative tactic for abating the slide of Christians into atheism - "you're only doing it because you're emotionally damaged".

This is interesting. It's often levelled at Christians that their conversion was due to emotional damage.

I wonder whether it's more to do with ego. The greater our ego, the less likely we are to be ready to be humble before God. Quite where this fits in to this study if at all I don't know, but if emotional damage helps us to see how small we are and allows us to be open to Christ we will go one way, while if it convinces us that a God who is supposed to give us a rosy glow all our lives doesn't exist, we may go the other way.

In retrospect we reflect on the reasons for and results of our train of thought, and then it's common to criticise the system we left. An ex-employee, for example, has much to say about what was wrong with the company he left, but the reasons he gives later may not be what caused the move.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
Are you saying that without the postulation of a god atheism couldn't exist?
Yes I am.

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
However, to link that to people who are atheists largely coming from churched families doesn't make a whole lot of sense; most of the atheists I know here in Britain were brought up in non-religious families. Sure they're not militant about it - but it is what it is. Over time as an idea gains viability the opposing views stand on their own rather than dependent on the original view.
How can an opposing view stand on it's own without a view to oppose?

But I think I might get what you're saying. I suspect the original atheism might morph into something else in time. Nature abhors a vacuum after all.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
This is arrant nonsense. You’re talking about ‘strong atheism’ or, more likely, antitheism. Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is the default neutral position, annulled by belief (either that there is a god, or that there is not in the case of strong atheism or antitheism).
It is not the default neutral position at all.

You cannot lack something that does not exist. For example, if I make a cake and leave it out and my son takes a piece, I will notice a lack of a piece.

Without the cake (God) I would have never noticed the lack (atheism).

A lack means something is missing. How can something be missing if nothing was there in the first place?

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:


We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above.
No. We are born theists. God creates souls and they are born. Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I have been pushed to the edge of Christianity, though not (yet?) an atheist. This never would have happened had I not married an evangelical. Many evangelicals insist on believing the demonstrably untrue (and no amount of evidence will change them; but if you ask them for evidence, you won't get it), which sets up its adherent to follow two basic paths: full submission to the fantasy or be marginalised by one means or another. That kind of evangelical culture is demonstrable destructive and it sets up all those involved for a considerable fall; and I will be glad when it eats itself. The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.

K.
Agreed.

If I was born and raised in a Christian household that believed in penal substitution, I would certainly be an atheist by now.


quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.
Which is very interesting, because the article seems to conclude the exact opposite. Being vague and not giving strong, clear answers based on Biblical values is going to breed an army of mini-Dawkins, apparently.
Exactly.

No wonder I thought something was fishy about it.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Your first sentence here is is probably truer of the USA than the UK, especially England. In England, we've already had several generations of families that aren't especially religious, so being an atheist isn't necessarily about rejecting an overtly Christian upbringing.

It does happen, of course. We still come across lapsed Catholics who are sometimes very negative about Christianity. Anglicans and people from closely related churches seem to drift away quietly, without great proclamations or attempts to attack the foolishness of religious belief. Evangelicals moved to the margins of the culture fairly early in the last century, or even sooner, so modern accounts of British evangelicals becoming atheists don't surface that often. One famous British ex-evangelical (Elim Pentecostal) is the author Jeanette Winterson. Another is the athlete Jonathan Edwards.

Young people are already in short supply in most British churches, and those who do attend Sunday School often leave at a quite young age. Atheism isn't usually the reason, although they may become atheists later. Evangelical churches probably lose more young people to atheism, but that's partly because they have more young people to start with.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
Are you saying that without the postulation of a god atheism couldn't exist?
Yes I am.
You appear to be confusing the existence of something with having or needing a special name for it. Either that, or you're employing a definition of atheism so idiosyncratic that it borders on Humpty-Dumptyism.

If no god was postulated, everyone would be atheists by any reasonable measure. They almost certainly wouldn't have a name for such a position, on account of having no need to differentiate between them and the non-existent theists, but atheists they would be.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
Are you suggesting (like Evensong) that a newborn baby is by definition theist? If so, how does that work, and how is it not an equally ‘tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes’?
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
What. The. Fuck?!
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
Are you suggesting (like Evensong) that a newborn baby is by definition theist? If so, how does that work, and how is it not an equally ‘tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes’?
Yorick, sometimes your posts seem deliberately obtuse. Clearly, atheism, like theism, is a philosophical construct ("-ism" is a pretty good clue for this sort of thing.) There is no reason that I can think of to imagine that any such construct is present at birth.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Atheism. a-theism. No-theism.

Babies are born with no idea of gods. Right?

I agree however, that when most people use the word, they think of Dawkins or whatever. Maybe we could call this atheism 'non-theism'?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I've been trying to stay silent, but why would you assume babies don't have any spirituality? If there is no god, that would be one good reason to assume it, but since some of us don't assume that, I see no logical reason that babies have no idea of the numinous. They seem to have ideas about what is beautiful or exciting immediately, after all.

[ 20. June 2013, 14:18: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
They seem to have ideas about what is beautiful or exciting immediately, after all.
Oh, well that settles it then.


[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
Are you suggesting (like Evensong) that a newborn baby is by definition theist?
The baby is no more an atheist or a theist than an apple is. Calling someone an atheist or a theist implies that person has the capacity to hold beliefs about the relevant subject matter. Babies and apples do not.

That said, you can attribute religion based on practice. A child being brought up by practicing Hindus is presumably participating in Hindu religious practices even if only by proxy. One should certainly count such a child as a Hindu if, for example, deciding whether to lay on pureed lentils or pureed beef as a weaning food.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Atheism. a-theism. No-theism.

Babies are born with no idea of gods. Right?

I agree however, that when most people use the word, they think of Dawkins or whatever. Maybe we could call this atheism 'non-theism'?
No, it is not an -ism at all. The assumption of theoretical sophistication that this implies is unwarranted. Failing to have a thought construct does not make you an atheist (although some here would probably disagree...) You might as well say that Neanderthal man was an opponent of string theory.

--Tom Clune

[ 20. June 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Massive tangent, ergo, new thread.

(With apologies to Josephine.)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
You might as well say that Neanderthal man was an opponent of string theory.
That's only a valid comparison if you define an atheist as someone who is opposed to theism. If, as Yorick appears to, you simply define atheism as the absence of any belief in any god/gods, then that is not the case. Under such a definition babies are indeed atheists, as they are incapable of having any such beliefs.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
You might as well say that Neanderthal man was an opponent of string theory.
That's only a valid comparison if you define an atheist as someone who is opposed to theism. If, as Yorick appears to, you simply define atheism as the absence of any belief in any god/gods, then that is not the case. Under such a definition babies are indeed atheists, as they are incapable of having any such beliefs.
And the wholesale redefinition of words is precisely what I am taking issue with. We can define "atheist" as "featherless biped" and claim that most people are atheists. But it is not at all compelling.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And the wholesale redefinition of words is precisely what I am taking issue with. We can define "atheist" as "featherless biped" and claim that most people are atheists. But it is not at all compelling.
From dictionary.com:

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(emphasis mine)

It seems to me that all that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in a/any god/gods. No actual opposition or hostility towards theism is required. In a culture where the concept of god/gods simply does not exist, every person would be a de facto atheist, even though they wouldn't have a clue what the word even means.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And the wholesale redefinition of words is precisely what I am taking issue with. We can define "atheist" as "featherless biped" and claim that most people are atheists. But it is not at all compelling.
From dictionary.com:

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(emphasis mine)

It seems to me that all that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in a/any god/gods. No actual opposition or hostility towards theism is required. In a culture where the concept of god/gods simply does not exist, every person would be a de facto atheist, even though they wouldn't have a clue what the word even means.
"Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Will you concede that there is a position of non-belief that may legitimately be called atheism?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
"Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion."
So what would you call a baby who is neither atheist nor theist?

I doubt many people would have problems with calling a baby "apolitical" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on politics. But isn't that the same thing as calling it "atheist" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on theism?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Yorick started a new thread about what babies know about God. Those of us interested in discussing such should probably follow him there.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
@tclune If we are not allowed to use the word atheist to describe someone who doesn't believe in God then what word should we use?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
"Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion."
So what would you call a baby who is neither atheist nor theist?

I doubt many people would have problems with calling a baby "apolitical" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on politics. But isn't that the same thing as calling it "atheist" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on theism?
Rocks are atheists too. Trees. Frogs.
 
Posted by Tea (# 16619) on :
 
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
The article did not echo my move towards atheism, which took place during my adolescence in the Britain of the seventies.

From about the age of twelve onwards, I associated monotheism in general and Christianity in particular with a stifling social, cultural, and political conservatism. I wanted to rebel against that conservatism.

I had long been fascinated by the world of classical antiquity, and both Judaism and Christianity seemed joyless, sexless, and colorless in comparison. I admired the building of the Parthenon rather than the destruction of the golden calf, and found myself more drawn to the birth of Venus than the death of Jesus. I also found the openmindedness of many of the pagans of antiquity with regard to a plurality of gods and cults more attractive than what appeared to me as the narrow intolerance of the First Commandment.

Many of the Christians I encountered at school were conservative evangelicals, some of whom made strenuous efforts to convert me to their beliefs. Not only did I find their find their apologetics unconvincing, but I also detected a nasty streak of anti-intellectualism in their rhetoric. I was also repelled by the cult-like pretense of personal concern and friendship which, I felt, masked anger at my continued rejection of their beliefs and a desire to notch up a conversion that was of much greater importance to them than any wish to engage in honest intellectual exploration and argument.

One of these evangelists insisted I go with him to a Baptist service. This long, long morning in spent in an architectural horror with hymn after hymn, a seemingly interminable sermon, and prayers that made me cringe appalled me.

As an undergraduate at a rather conservative university, I became aware that the Christian Union acted as a a mobilizing network for social conservatives. This conservatism made me, for a while, quite outspoken in my atheism.

As I have grown older, better read, and more conscious both of my own heritage (mixed Anglican and Jewish) and of the many threads that make up our collective past, I have qualified and modified many of the judgements that I made with such confidence in my youth.

So my reading of history in general and US history in particular made me revise my earlier conflation of Christianity with conservatism.

I became aware that some (not all) modern celebrations of pagan antiquity have carried the virus of antisemitism.

I remember my school chaplain, a 1928 Prayer Book Anglican, whose Christianity was less simplistic and more challenging than that of the evangelical peers. I also remember that the university SCM, although tiny in comparison with the Christian Union, contained powerful voices for justice and social solidarity.

I was lucky enough to stumble upon authors - James Barr is one that comes to mind - who showed me that evangelical Christianity need not be identical with fundamentalism. I am also thankful for the various splendours and wonders of those Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches that I have visited.

These revisionary thoughts do not mean that I am reconsidering my atheism; the problem of evil presents what I consider to be an insuperable problem for believers and there are many other reasons that I neither want nor expect to be a believer.

I hope, though, that my brief sketch of my move to atheism shows that the implied (conservative evangelical) recommendations of the article Josephine brought to our attention would not "work" with me - and I think I am by no means unusual as far as the history and shape of my atheist thinking goes.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rocks are atheists too. Trees. Frogs.
They don't believe in any god/s, so yes it could be said that they are.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...So what would you call a baby who is neither atheist nor theist?..
Let me try and answer that. We have many small children (I'm talking under 1 year old in some cases) in our church, and they are given communion and considered "Christians", not "potential Christians." Baptism I think is the litmus test at that age - what else could suffice?

If a child's parents don't baptize him and desire he be an atheist (or humanist) then that is what he is - for now. If, God willing, he should become a christian when he gets older, then he has finished with atheism and become a theist, a Christian.

These are just my opinions of course, but if I am wrong then why use the word "convert?"
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
That's certainly one way of looking at it, Mark - it's a question of what the "default setting" for baby humans is, and "whatever their parents are" is a perfectly valid answer. It's not one I necessarily agree with, but it's arguable.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
..."Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.

--Tom Clune
For those "without an opinion" ie. not interested, I don't know what you would call them. It is not "atheism" as we know it (Jim), simply apathy. Is there a name for people of such a position?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Fencesitters
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Nah. That implies hedging.

It's more like "never thought beyond my own ass" ers
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
I think "agnostic" would be closer than "atheist."
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think "agnostic" would be closer than "atheist."
When describing young children, I've always thought "heathen" fit the bill... [Big Grin]

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
..."Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.

--Tom Clune
For those "without an opinion" ie. not interested, I don't know what you would call them. It is not "atheism" as we know it (Jim), simply apathy. Is there a name for people of such a position?
Apatheist?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Indifferentist. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Slightly more seriously, it is interesting that we have such an aversion to the notion of ignorance that we refuse to apply it to those who literally and nonjudgmentally are ignorant.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
Yes, you are. Not by saying you disbelieve in them, but by using the term "UFO". By definition, you have no idea what an Unidentified Flying Object is.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Slightly more seriously, it is interesting that we have such an aversion to the notion of ignorance that we refuse to apply it to those who literally and nonjudgmentally are ignorant.
I think it has more to do with the aversion to the term "atheist". It seems to be regarded in religious circles as one of the most dire and insulting thing you can say about anyone, hence the offense at calling poor, innocent babies by such a vile term.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
..."Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.

--Tom Clune
For those "without an opinion" ie. not interested, I don't know what you would call them. It is not "atheism" as we know it (Jim), simply apathy. Is there a name for people of such a position?
Apatheist?
Meh-theism.

But this betrays some interesting biases. There are many people who don't really care about religion either way, possibly even the majority of the population. But most people fitting that description, in this country anyway, would probably identify as Christian if pushed. They vaguely identify with the church for a portfolio of cultural reasons, even if they have to be carried in both times they attend a service.

So maybe the answer's CofE. [Devil]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
Yes, you are. Not by saying you disbelieve in them, but by using the term "UFO". By definition, you have no idea what an Unidentified Flying Object is.
That is truly ludicrous. Just about everyone who uses the term has a pretty clear idea of what a UFO is. They may be wrong, but the implication is unmistakable.

--Tom Clune

[ 21. June 2013, 15:18: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, you are. Not by saying you disbelieve in them, but by using the term "UFO". By definition, you have no idea what an Unidentified Flying Object is.
That is truly ludicrous. Just about everyone who uses the term has a pretty clear idea of what a UFO is. They may be wrong, but the implication is unmistakable.
Not at all. The terminology was coined by the US Air Force and meant to be a catch-all for any flying object of unknown nature. To borrow a little from Slacktivist:

quote:
If you’re not familiar with Chris Carter’s wonderful 1990s TV show [The X-Files], it follows the adventures of two FBI agents who are tasked with investigating unexplained phenomena. Agent Scully, played by Gillian Anderson, is the one who believes in UFOs.

Many people get that backwards. Since Scully is the skeptical scientist and Mulder the idealistic true believer, they mistakenly think Mulder believes in UFOs. He doesn’t. Mulder can’t abide allowing flying objects to remain unidentified. He doesn’t believe in UFOs, he believes in alien spacecraft.
Emphasis added by me.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You are mistaking etymology for meaning.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are mistaking etymology for meaning.
I'm not sure it's even etymology, just phrase construction. "Unidentified Flying Object" seems to be a set of three words with a fairly clear and unambiguous meaning, both individually and when combined.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are mistaking etymology for meaning.
I'm not sure it's even etymology, just phrase construction. "Unidentified Flying Object" seems to be a set of three words with a fairly clear and unambiguous meaning, both individually and when combined.
Once something is coined, it is released into the linguistic community, and its meaning floats on the waves. It doesn't matter what the constituent parts mean separately. The phrase as a whole has its own definition, and it has evolved since its coining. English has no Academie. Usage is meaning.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Once something is coined, it is released into the linguistic community, and its meaning floats on the waves. It doesn't matter what the constituent parts mean separately. The phrase as a whole has its own definition, and it has evolved since its coining. English has no Academie. Usage is meaning.
True, but I don't think the usage of "UFO" has changed as unequivocally as you seem to think it has. Consider the following hypothetical news item:

quote:
A UFO was seen over a soybean field near Lafayette, Indiana for about two minutes, before disappearing into a cloud bank.
If we accept your premise, almost everyone who hears that report will think "Wow, alien spacecraft have been seen in Indiana" and virtually no one will think "Wow, people saw something flying near Lafayette and no one* knows what it is". I remain convinced that more people will think the latter than the former.


--------------------
*In this case "no one" is shorthand for "no one who spoke to local reporters".
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Once something is coined, it is released into the linguistic community, and its meaning floats on the waves. It doesn't matter what the constituent parts mean separately. The phrase as a whole has its own definition, and it has evolved since its coining. English has no Academie. Usage is meaning.
True, but I don't think the usage of "UFO" has changed as unequivocally as you seem to think it has. Consider the following hypothetical news item:

quote:
A UFO was seen over a soybean field near Lafayette, Indiana for about two minutes, before disappearing into a cloud bank.
If we accept your premise, almost everyone who hears that report will think "Wow, alien spacecraft have been seen in Indiana" and virtually no one will think "Wow, people saw something flying near Lafayette and no one* knows what it is". I remain convinced that more people will think the latter than the former.


--------------------
*In this case "no one" is shorthand for "no one who spoke to local reporters".
You are aware that words can have more than one meaning, right? Right? RIGHT?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Edited for crosspost:

quote:
quote:
A UFO was seen over a soybean field near Lafayette, Indiana for about two minutes, before disappearing into a cloud bank.
If we accept your premise, almost everyone who hears that report will think "Wow, alien spacecraft have been seen in Indiana" and virtually no one will think "Wow, people saw something flying near Lafayette and no one* knows what it is". I remain convinced that more people will think the latter than the former.
I'd say most people will take that as a claim that alien spacecraft were seen there, but then will wisely choose to suspect it was really a balloon or whatnot.

[ 21. June 2013, 18:35: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are aware that words can have more than one meaning, right? Right? RIGHT?
I certainly am. I was wondering about you, though, since you seem to have trouble with the idea that the phrase "Unidentified Flying Object" might refer to a flying object that could not be identified.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are aware that words can have more than one meaning, right? Right? RIGHT?
I certainly am. I was wondering about you, though, since you seem to have trouble with the idea that the phrase "Unidentified Flying Object" might refer to a flying object that could not be identified.
No, I merely think it NEEDN'T mean that exclusively, as you appear to.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Atheism] is not the default neutral position at all.

You cannot lack something that does not exist. For example, if I make a cake and leave it out and my son takes a piece, I will notice a lack of a piece.

Without the cake (God) I would have never noticed the lack (atheism).

A lack means something is missing. How can something be missing if nothing was there in the first place?

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:


We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above.
No. We are born theists. God creates souls and they are born. Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
The actual 'default neural position' is ______________________ .

We then fill in that gap with whatever we subsequently choose to believe, usually as a selection from philosophical constructs that are presented to us by whatever society we find ourselves in.

You illustrate this particularly well in your last assertion there, Evensong.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No. We are born theists. God creates souls and they are born. Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
(Italics are mine)

Interesting that newborns are apparently monotheists in your world view. I wonder what happened before the time of Abraham? This demonstrates that you're projecting your own belief on others again.

[ 02. July 2013, 20:56: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Tea. [Overused] I wanted to do [Axe murder] but you'd take it as passive aggression.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I would say that the majority of people I deal with are vaguely aware of Christianity, and of the form of some of the observances done by Christians, but they don't really care much.

Just as a significant number of church-attenders are REALLY not interested in much about the Church or the religion beyond having someone on tap to offer support and condolence as necessary.

Apatheist is quite appropriate as a descriptor, ISTM.

They aren't formally agnostic, let alone atheist, they JUST DON"T CARE much, whatever Evensong or the other "but-they-must" people would like to think.
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
It is often asserted that babies are atheists, in that they do not express a belief in God. Of course a babies beliefs are unverifiable, since they do not have a language to express what they believe, but putting that aside it seems intuitive that a baby would not have a belief in anything in particular. From this it is sometimes claimed that atheism is the "natural" state of humanity, and any non-atheist position is a deviation from the natural.

But on the same grounds babies also don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics, or that Rome is the capital of Italy, or that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither do they believe that unicorns exist, that rain falls upwards, or that Rome is the capital of Sweden. What a baby believes (or rather doesn't believe) has very little to do with what actually is, and shouldn't be used to impute what is "natural" or "proper" for adults to believe.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
Babies are no more atheists than they are creationists - which they clearly must be, according to some of you, because babies have no belief in evolution (nor any conception of the origin of a species).

Please - go read up on "category mistakes" before you all go off committing further category mistakes left, right, and centre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

It even discusses how "Most Americans are atheists" would not be a category mistake (though it is factually incorrect), while "Most bananas are atheists" is a category mistake.

Davyd has already pointed this out. But some of you missed his point. You are failing to recognise a basic logical distinction between that which CAN have a particular property (but doesn't) and that which cannot have a particular property at all.

For example: the reason I reject the proposition "courage is red" isn't because courage is really blue, it is because courage has no colour at all - cannot be any colour. Color is inapplicable to abstract concepts like courage. "Courage is red" is not factually false, it is a category mistake. Likewise, "babies (and bananas) are atheists" isn't factually true or false - it is an outright category mistake.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Babies are no more atheists than they are creationists - which they clearly must be, according to some of you, because babies have no belief in evolution (nor any conception of the origin of a species).
Bad example. There's more to being a creationist than not believing in descent with modification. There's supposedly a whole set of positive beliefs involved as well.
 
Posted by vw man (# 13951) on :
 
2 of my Children are active Christians one of them has helped plant a Church,the other involved i work with students
My other 2 have turned away from God ButI know within me they will return to Christ
all who Have Children who no longer have a faith dont give up hpoe Christ may well bring them back at the right time
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Jesus saves.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Babies are no more atheists than they are creationists - which they clearly must be, according to some of you, because babies have no belief in evolution (nor any conception of the origin of a species).
Bad example. There's more to being a creationist than not believing in descent with modification. There's supposedly a whole set of positive beliefs involved as well.
Babies don't believe a single thing that Dawkins says. And never read your posts, either.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Babies don't believe a single thing that Dawkins says. And never read your posts, either.
Curiously enough, babies don't believe any of that gumph of Yorick's about babies being atheists.

More fun with category mistakes.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
I'm not sure why athiests claim that babies are born athiest, or Christians that babies are born Christian. Affiliating one's intellectual position with that of a baby is not the greatest argument for it.

Surely immaturity of thought and ignorance of the world is not what you want to associate with your own position.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
But on the same grounds babies also don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics, or that Rome is the capital of Italy, or that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither do they believe that unicorns exist, that rain falls upwards, or that Rome is the capital of Sweden. What a baby believes (or rather doesn't believe) has very little to do with what actually is, and shouldn't be used to impute what is "natural" or "proper" for adults to believe.
I agree. The fact that theists like to claim that babies believe in god is at once laughable and depressing. Babies are atheists*, and theists shouldn't get all upset about this. It's fine- there's plenty of time to brainwash them into believing in whatever stuff you want them to before they grow sufficient independence of thought to make up their own minds about it.

* Look, this is really, really simple.

a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.

Ergo, babies are atheists.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uriel:
[qb]* Look, this is really, really simple.

a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.

Ergo, babies are atheists.
I've seen this argument many times from what could be called "reddit Atheists." But it seems rather dubious to me that babies have the mental capabilities necessary to form the conclusion "There is no God." I reject your argument.

If it makes you feel better, I reject the idea that babies have the capacity to form the conclusion that there is a God too.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uriel:
[qb]* Look, this is really, really simple.

a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.

Ergo, babies are atheists.
I've seen this argument many times from what could be called "reddit Atheists." But it seems rather dubious to me that babies have the mental capabilities necessary to form the conclusion "There is no God." I reject your argument.
Regardless of whether babies are atheist, Christian or Muslim it is pretty bleedin' obvious that "form[ing] the conclusion "There is no God"" is not the same as "Lacking belief in god".
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
There is no real difference between positive (there is no God) or negative (I don't believe in God) atheism.

The difference is only philosophical and semantic posturing.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uriel:
[qb]* Look, this is really, really simple.

a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.

Ergo, babies are atheists.
I've seen this argument many times from what could be called "reddit Atheists." But it seems rather dubious to me that babies have the mental capabilities necessary to form the conclusion "There is no God." I reject your argument.
Regardless of whether babies are atheist, Christian or Muslim it is pretty bleedin' obvious that "form[ing] the conclusion "There is no God"" is not the same as "Lacking belief in god".
Well, from that line a dining room chair is atheist, which makes it a pretty meaningless affair.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I think most people would agree that we are all born with a capacity for a sense of the numinous. In some people this goes on to develop into a belief in a deity or deities, usually because of what they are taught in childhood. In some it doesn't.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus saves.
. . . but Moses invests. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
* Look, this is really, really simple.

a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.

Ergo, babies are atheists.
Wouldn't this all be a lot simpler we acknowledged that we're using the words in different ways? Many of the thesis object to the labelling of babies as atheists because they find the use of the label implies a lot more than you're suggesting it does.

Personally I'm uncomfortable labelling babies as atheists because I think
1) It implies that the default human position doesn't involve God. It's not that I want to say babies have an active belief in God, but certainly for baptised infants in the church I would want to affirm some kind of relationship to and with the divine.
2) It implies a certain level of solidarity with the non-believing portion of society over and against the believing part.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus saves.
. . . but Moses invests. [Big Grin]
...and The Buddha recycles
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no real difference between positive (there is no God) or negative (I don't believe in God)
I don't agree.

You might as well say that there is no difference between "He who is not against us is for us" and "those not for us are against us".

Whereas the two similar-sounding statements assign the whole uncertain middle ground to opposite sides of the divide.

As for the meaning of atheism, it's very simple. By derivation it looks like it means "without religious belief" (like amoral or apolitical) but by common usage it means something closer to "opposed to religious belief".

Of the various alternative terms proposed, my preference would be for unbelieving and disbelieving. Seems to me totally obvious that newborns are unbelieving but not disbelieving.

Seems to me that everyone has their own idea of what's wrong with the church. And that in any "research" of this kind the temptation to make the connections between what interviewees say and one's own ideas must've overpowering without a really strong structured methodology.

But two cheers anyway, for someone trying to listen to what others have to say.

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
But on the same grounds babies also don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics, or that Rome is the capital of Italy, or that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither do they believe that unicorns exist, that rain falls upwards, or that Rome is the capital of Sweden. What a baby believes (or rather doesn't believe) has very little to do with what actually is, and shouldn't be used to impute what is "natural" or "proper" for adults to believe.
I agree. The fact that theists like to claim that babies believe in god is at once laughable and depressing. Babies are atheists*, and theists shouldn't get all upset about this. It's fine- there's plenty of time to brainwash them into believing in whatever stuff you want them to before they grow sufficient independence of thought to make up their own minds about it.

* Look, this is really, really simple.

a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.

Ergo, babies are atheists.
Still peddling category mistakes, I see.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
1) It implies that the default human position doesn't involve God.
Yep, that is exactly the argument that we're having here. What is the default human position? Is belief in god/s something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, or something that must be lost for one to become an atheist?

The problem is, atheist/theist is an either/or categorisation. We lack a category for those who are completely unable to decide for themselves where they stand, so both sides are trying to claim them as their own.

For my part, I regard belief in god/s as something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, therefore I class babies as atheist. Others differ.
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yep, that is exactly the argument that we're having here. What is the default human position? Is belief in god/s something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, or something that must be lost for one to become an atheist?

The problem is, atheist/theist is an either/or categorisation. We lack a category for those who are completely unable to decide for themselves where they stand, so both sides are trying to claim them as their own.

For my part, I regard belief in god/s as something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, therefore I class babies as atheist. Others differ.
I was trying to avoid notions of belief in the way I phrased it—as a Christian I would want to affirm some kind of connection between babies and God without putting it in terms of belief. It may be a largely one-sided relationship in which God does pretty much all the work and experience, but in labelling them as atheist I feel we're using a label that implies more than it actually means.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
* Look, this is really, really simple.

a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.

Ergo, babies are atheists.
Look this is really, really simple.

a) lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) stones lack a belief in god.

Ergo, stones are atheists.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
as a Christian I would want to affirm some kind of connection between babies and God without putting it in terms of belief.
Of course you would. But that doesn't mean everyone else should as well.

I mean, you may as well go on to say that God has some kind of connection to everybody (imagio dei and all that), and thus that atheists - and Muslims, and Hindus, etc - are really Christians.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
There are two proposed definitions for athiest.

1: Rejection of a belief in dieties.
2: Absence of a belief in dieties.

The first is the historically and etymologically accurate definition. Since the word was invented it has always been used to mean those who explicitly reject belief. The OED, which bases its definitions on current usage, only has the following definitions of athiest:

A. noun
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

B. adj.
1. Atheistic, impious.

And for Athiesm, noun:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

Yet words change over time. Can we broaden its meaning to include all those who merely have no belief? I would argue not, for the following reasons.

To broaden the definition involves rejecting the category of agnosticism, since in this broad definition anyone who does not explicitely believe in God is athiest, even though many would classify themselves as not having made up their minds one way or the other, or that it is philosophically impossible to know anything. To broaden a term to lump people together who hold different opinions is less precise and therefore less useful than otherwise.

As pointed out, the redefinition of athiesm to mean 'without belief' instead of 'rejection of belief', necessarily includes all inanimate objects and non-sentient animals as well as those professing non-belief. Again this makes the term less precise, less useful, and in fact somewhat ridiculous.

Some writers have proposed such concepts as implicit atheism such as George H Smith but that doesn't mean everyone else has to accept such proposals.

But words do change over time to new definitions, even ones that seem wrong or ridiculous. It is usage that matters. But one cannot invent usage oneself. To put the case for a redefinition, Yorick would have to provide instances of this new common useage of the word. Let's say four instances from reputable publications would probably be sufficient for the OED to consider adding the new useage. Can you do that Yorick?

[ 08. July 2013, 15:40: Message edited by: Hawk ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
To broaden the definition involves rejecting the category of agnosticism
I'd be willing to consider classing babies as agnostic, on the grounds that they haven't yet developed a mind to make up. But to my mind "agnostic" implies someone who knows there's a decision to be made but who hasn't made it yet - to me it's the category that implies the most thought is going on in the individual's mind.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Yorick's definition is widely accepted. Put it this way, I have been debating with atheists for a number of years, and the idea that atheism amounts to 'a lack of belief in God', has been generally a mutually accepted premise to the arguments.

It seems bizarre to deny this, and insist that atheism must involve a positive belief that there is no God/god. There are atheists who do assert that, of course.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems bizarre to deny this, and insist that atheism must involve a positive belief that there is no God/god.
I think some people are struggling with the idea that a person can have no positive beliefs about religious subjects. Hence comments like "babies don't believe what Dawkins says either", as if they'd have to do so to be atheists!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Then again, I find 'babies are atheists' rather weird, as you are getting into some strange presupposition-type stuff here. I am happy for 'atheist' to mean having a lack of belief in God/gods, but I would also think it involves a presupposition, something like, 'capable of having a belief in something'.

I don't really know if babies believe things, certainly such intellectual concepts. I don't think carrots do, so an atheist carrot sounds peculiar to me.
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course you would. But that doesn't mean everyone else should as well.
No, but it means that I'm uncomfortable with someone else insisting that babies are atheists and that's that. Of my two objections this is probably the weaker—I object more to them being implicitly identified with a specific subgroup of society.

quote:

I mean, you may as well go on to say that God has some kind of connection to everybody (imagio dei and all that), and thus that atheists - and Muslims, and Hindus, etc - are really Christians.
I don't think my position demands that—sure, I could try and go that route, but I think it's coherent not to.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
These for me are increasingly acceptable, or if you like, decreasingly bizarre:

this carrot is an atheist
my cat is an atheist
my baby is an atheist
my son is an atheist

I think the reason is that we take 'atheist' as suggesting that someone could take another view, for example, could be a theist, or wasn't sure.

I just don't think that a carrot, a cat, or a baby, could be a theist. Therefore, to say that they could be an atheist also seems odd.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
To broaden the definition involves rejecting the category of agnosticism
I'd be willing to consider classing babies as agnostic, on the grounds that they haven't yet developed a mind to make up. But to my mind "agnostic" implies someone who knows there's a decision to be made but who hasn't made it yet - to me it's the category that implies the most thought is going on in the individual's mind.
Interesting that you're willing to narrow the definition of 'agnostic' to a positively-conceived philosophical position, while rejecting such precision in 'atheist', despite both coming from the same etymology and historical usage.

It is certainly possible to hold no philosophical position about God at all. Either because they've literally never thought about it (very few people - as soon as they are asked the question they think about it and formulate an opinion, however poorly) or because they don't have the mental capacity/development to hold any philosophical position. Simply describing such extremely rare individuals as 'non-theist' would do it IMO.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Interesting that you're willing to narrow the definition of 'agnostic' to a positively-conceived philosophical position, while rejecting such precision in 'atheist', despite both coming from the same etymology and historical usage.
As I said, we lack a word for those who are unable to consider the question. And I did say I'd accept agnostic as a valid answer to the "what category are babies in" question.

It's interesting that you bring up etymology though. Surely "atheist" is etymologically equivalent to your preferred "non-theist", whereas someone like Dawkins would more accurately be described as "anti-theist".
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's interesting that you bring up etymology though. Surely "atheist" is etymologically equivalent to your preferred "non-theist", whereas someone like Dawkins would more accurately be described as "anti-theist".
Well, its etymology is a direct transliteration from the greek ἄθεος. This word literally is 'not-God', but it doesn't mean that. The privative ἄ is used to derive a sense opposite from the stem. In this case the stem is theos, or God, but the meaning of theos in this sense indicates not the person of, but the belief in such.

Therefore ἄθεος means the opposite of belief in God. The opposite of belief in something is disbelief, not just absence of belief. The opposite of black is white, not colourless.

I agree with you about Dawkins though. He is definitely anti-belief-in-God, rather than merely not believing in Him.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Interesting that you're willing to narrow the definition of 'agnostic' to a positively-conceived philosophical position, while rejecting such precision in 'atheist', despite both coming from the same etymology and historical usage.
As I said, we lack a word for those who are unable to consider the question. And I did say I'd accept agnostic as a valid answer to the "what category are babies in" question.
Unfortunately while you may accept it, that falls into the same problem as trying to define them as athiest. Both terms refer to a specific philosophical position. One that God doesn't exist, the other that 'gnosis' or knowledge, doesn't exist - refering to the belief that one doesn't or cannot know if God exists or not.

To hold the agnostic viewpoint, one needs to have considered the evidence and come to the conclusion (even if only a snap decision) that one doesn't know, or cannot know. A baby has not and can not consider the question and therefore cannot be considered an agnostic.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, it's a bit like asking if a baby could be an adherent of dual aspect monism. One of my cousins is supposed to have sat up in the pram, and declared that Peano axioms are obviously first order statements. I do apologize, I made that up.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I agree with you about Dawkins though. He is definitely anti-belief-in-God, rather than merely not believing in Him.
I would say that Richard Dawkins is both atheist and anti-theist, not one or the other. I would also disagree with the implication that anti-theists are simply a subset of atheists; instead the underlying thinking process ought to be different in each case.

For atheism - the absence of belief in, or active disbelief in, God - all that is needed is a conclusion that the existence of God is, to put it mildly, implausible. Opinions about whether the gods described by various religions are nice or horrible are really not relevant. Neither are opinions about their followers.

Anti-theism, however, derives from a different thought process. Anti-theism could also mean "opposed to God" or "opposed to theist religion". It is not logical for an atheist to be an anti-theist in the first sense; on the other hand a Satanist may well believe in God but also be anti-theist in the first sense (and probably the second sense as well). Some atheists may well be anti-theist in the second sense. It can, of course, derive from the attributes of God as described in the Bible or the Quran, if you can consider that a religion that (a) believes in that God and (b) still considers him worthy of worship is dangerous and needs to be opposed (cf the parallel thread on William Lane Craig). Alternatively the perceived behaviour of theists (intolerance, misogyny, homophobia, Dead Horses generally) could be the cause of anti-theism.

Myself? I am an atheist and increasingly turning into a Class 2 anti-theist.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I would say that Richard Dawkins is both atheist and anti-theist, not one or the other. I would also disagree with the implication that anti-theists are simply a subset of atheists; instead the underlying thinking process ought to be different in each case....Myself? I am an atheist and increasingly turning into a Class 2 anti-theist.
I agree with your post. Anti-theist and athiest are indeed distinct. Seperating anti-theist into two distinct senses is useful as well. Language fails us here since it would be useful to have a different world for each sense. Would it be helpful to distinguish between anti-deist for the first sense (opposed to God) and anti-theist for the second (opposed to belief in God)?

In that sense Dawkins is both athiest and anti-theist, whereas it would be logically impossible to be athiest while also being anti-deist since someone who doesn't believe in God cannot also set themselves against Him (at least not willfuly). Anti-deists would be those who believe in God but don't like Him.

[ 09. July 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: Hawk ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
'Misotheist' is useful here; on the other hand, a theist can be a misotheist.

[ 09. July 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
'Antitheistist', perhaps? [Smile]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Misotheist' is useful here; on the other hand, a theist can be a misotheist.
Is that someone that believes in Japanese soup?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Misotheist' is useful here; on the other hand, a theist can be a misotheist.
Is that someone that believes in Japanese soup?
In fact, there was a famous Japanese misogynist, who went around liberally applying fermented bean paste to women's calves; when arrested, he claimed it was all part of an elaborate art installation, involving strange puns.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0