Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?

wynn said:
Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were without gods.

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.
Click to expand...

You suggested this in another thread also.

Theism describes man's belief in god. The word (a word that meant) "man" came first I suggest. And in the word "man" is no reference to religion. If it is important which word comes first surely the first EVER word was indeed "man-believes-in-god" . . .

The word "man" as in the word that meant "man" when any word that meant "man" was first used. Get it? Like ugg=man and uggugg=woman . . . ugg.

"Man" is a word that describes. "Man believes in god" is a concept. Which has to come first? (I don't think this is useful to any arguement trying to prove or disprove god. I want to point out the BS in the argument offered previously, and to show its irrelevance.)

EVERYTHING is atheist by default, so then why would a term for "atheism" be needed before "theism" arose? It's quite simple for anyone with a brain. The world existed for millions of years with all of its inhabitants being atheist (without god) until religion socially evolved. It was only after religion became widespread that the scholars felt it required to define default existence (atheism) in counterbalance. The chronology of the arisal of the words is irrelevant to the reliance on either belief system.

What comes first:

1,Man
2,Man believing in god

Man as a word/concept to describe what is contained within individuality is far older than religion, as religion requires higher brain function to be comprehended. What concept had to come first? A concept and term to describe individuals, or a concept to describe religion?

I would assert that a term to describe "man" (man without faith) came before a term to describe religion/god. Or do we assume that the first concept/term for "man" was inclusive of the idea that that man was "an entity that believes in god" by default???
 
She's suggested it in a number of threads and each time gives the same, tired, old argument that's been defeated a thousand times before.
 
universaldistress said:
EVERYTHING is atheist by default
Click to expand...

That might arguably be true, if we define 'atheist' as 'lacking belief' in the existence of god(s), or whatever sort of belief atheists are defined as lacking.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that 'weak atheist' definition though, mainly because it (perhaps in some cases intentionally) tries to collapse the state of having no belief in something together with the state of active disbelief in, opposition to and hostility towards that thing.

Imagine saying that everyone is born an a-physicist, in the sense that babies initially lack any belief in classical, relativistic or quantum physics. That's probably true in some trivial sense. But problems are going to appear when anyone begins insisting that initial state is somehow allied with and perhaps even identical to the position that adults assume when they knowingly reject and oppose physical science.
 
Yazata said:
That might arguably be true, if we define 'atheist' as 'lacking belief' in the existence of god(s), or whatever sort of belief atheists are defined as lacking.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that 'weak atheist' definition though, mainly because it (perhaps in some cases intentionally) tries to collapse the state of having no belief in something together with the state of active disbelief in, opposition to and hostility towards that thing.
Click to expand...
It is a valid use of the term "atheist". I would consider agnostics to be a type of atheist. It is reliant on definitions I concede, but ones I am comfortable with. If others wish to specify a specific type of atheist to be excluded from any thought experiment, they are within their rights to try any on for size.

Imagine saying that everyone is born an a-physicist, in the sense that babies initially lack any belief in classical, relativistic or quantum physics. That's probably true in some trivial sense. But problems are going to appear when anyone begins insisting that initial state is somehow allied with and perhaps even identical to the position that adults assume when they knowingly reject and oppose physical science.
Click to expand...

Babies do not need to believe in physics for physics to exist. And no one is claiming babys to be or not be a-physicists. I see no issue other than definition, and my definition may be broad but I still find it valid in this thread.

Lets take another look: "One without belief in god".

Do adults who claim themselves to be atheist fit in this definition?
Do newborn babies fit within this definition?
Do animals fit here?

I see nothing to refute my assertion that atheism is the default, though I do respectfully note your reservations. If more specific avenues are to be trod, lead the way . . .
 
wynn said:
Why do some people consider themselves "atheist"?


"Atheism" is a concept that derives its meaning and relevance from the concept "theism."
Without "theism," there can be no "atheism."
"Atheism" is a term that originated among theists to describe those who were

Those who consider themselves "atheists" thus believe that theism is real and relevant enough to form some kind of opposition to it, for purposes of identification.
Click to expand...

Not true could not be MORE WRONG

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists

The term atheism originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without gods", (atheoi) meaning with out god which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the god(s) worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.
_______________________________________________

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. The term theism may be used within context for monotheism, a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.


==================================================================================
The Christian God can easily be pictured as virtually the same God as the many ancient Gods of
past civilizations. The Christian God is a three headed monster cruel, vengeful, and capricious
......If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast-like god. one only needs to
look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him they are always of two classes fools an hypocrites




Atheoi
 
Without much looking at the previous arguments for fear of bias and also to piss off easily 3/4 of the debaters for cutting the same path that has probably been cut, it would seem that the initial character state (as a kind of ordinal) of babies and so forth is non-theist: which is to say that no explicit character state has been chosen. There's no reason to conjoin that state with post-rationalism (of the individual, not of fucking philosophy itself, so that no pejorative is implied here) rejection of theism: again, this is an ordinal solution set, not a binary. They is not the same. So the thread can stick itself in its fleshy, ample derriere, and probably should. Doom to you all, and doom take you.
 
Theism is a FAITH FAITH FAITH that a single God created everything, and is the origins of whatever we call everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top