Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

But the only thing necessary to be an actual bona fide atheist is to not hold the belief that God (or gods) exist (or for Jan's benefit, Is).
If one wishes to refer to a certain subset that is absolutely fine, but one should surely not generalise to the whole in doing so?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, and a theist is a person who believes in God.
To ''not hold the belief that God does not exist' (whatever that means), is but a reason one does not believe in God.

jan.
 
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, and a theist is a person who believes in God.
To ''not hold the belief that God does not exist' (whatever that means), is but a reason one does not believe in God.

jan.
What do you call someone who doesn't believe in ghosts?
 
What do you call someone who doesn't believe in ghosts?
(Given that there is no specific word for one who lacks belief in ghosts, it may be more appropriate to ask ... )

What behaviours distinguish a person who doesn't believe in ghosts from a person who lacks belief in the existence of ghosts?
 
(Given that there is no specific word for one who lacks belief in ghosts, it may be more appropriate to ask ... )

What behaviours distinguish a person who doesn't believe in ghosts from a person who lacks belief in the existence of ghosts?

Since there is no specific word for one who lacks a belief in ghosts, it may be more appropriate to ask why there is one for one who lacks a belief in God?

The only difference is that those who believe in God are less humble than those who believe in ghosts.
 
Since there is no specific word for one who lacks a belief in ghosts, it may be more appropriate to ask why there is one for one who lacks a belief in God?

The only difference is that those who believe in God are less humble than those who believe in ghosts.
In regards to your first question, you offer ample evidence in your second para.

Atheists can't apparently leave the issue of mere "absence/presence of belief" alone without bringing their own extra baggage.
 
Interesting.
So atheism begets the "real" world view.
Dig your hole a little deeper. Tell us more ...
Rationalism begets the "real" world view. There may be ghosts or gods for that matter but being rational, I would withhold judgement until there was some evidence for them.
 
Rationalism begets the "real" world view. There may be ghosts or gods for that matter but being rational, I would withhold judgement until there was some evidence for them.

So the Samurai boots in a photo doesn't do it for you?

:)
 
Rationalism begets the "real" world view.
Truism 101?
Regardless of whatever rationalism does or does not tell us, you were discussing atheism.

There may be ghosts or gods for that matter but being rational, I would withhold judgement until there was some evidence for them.
Interesting.
So what are behaviours we can attribute to "withholding judgment" to distinguish from those that don't ?
 
Truism 101?
Regardless of whatever rationalism does or does not tell us, you were discussing atheism.


Interesting.
So what are behaviours we can attribute to "withholding judgment" to distinguish from those that don't ?
You were discussing atheism. That's your concept.

The concept of behaviors that can be distinguished between those who withhold judgement from those that don't was your concept as well. To me it makes no difference if those two behaviors are indistinguishable or not.
 
Since there is no specific word for one who lacks a belief in ghosts, it may be more appropriate to ask why there is one for one who lacks a belief in God?

The only difference is that those who believe in God are less humble than those who believe in ghosts.
Theism includes Ghosts. Why else does it have a "Holy Ghost" as one of the fundamental Trinity?
 
You were discussing atheism. That's your concept.
Actually you were discussing atheism ... at least until you linked it to rationalism with a truism.

The concept of behaviors that can be distinguished between those who withhold judgement from those that don't was your concept as well. To me it makes no difference if those two behaviors are indistinguishable or not.
Then if the behaviours are indistinguishable, you are just discussing semantics.
 
Actually you were discussing atheism ... at least until you linked it to rationalism with a truism.


Then if the behaviours are indistinguishable, you are just discussing semantics.
It's only semantics that causes you to have a word for "atheism" and not for "aghostism".
 
It's only semantics that causes you to have a word for "atheism" and not for "aghostism".
Not in all senses, since agnosticism can be tied to some behaviours/states distinguishable from atheism. I say "not in all senses" because the position of agnosticism seems to also be used to assert a veiled type of atheism.
 
Not in all senses, since agnosticism can be tied to some behaviours/states distinguishable from atheism. I say "not in all senses" because the position of agnosticism seems to also be used to assert a veiled type of atheism.
I didn't say "agnosticism" I said "aghosticism"...one who does believe in ghosts.
 
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, and a theist is a person who believes in God.
To ''not hold the belief that God does not exist' (whatever that means), is but a reason one does not believe in God.

jan.
///
If you cannot understand what it means to not believe god does not exist, you are a lost cause. It certainly is not a reason to not believe in god.
As usual, you have it backward.

<>
 
Back
Top