Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting article, I think I see what he means; I myself am anti-theist in some areas for sure, not agreeing with them on certain doctrines. I have never really considered this; good post.
Well I am not so sure about that; Atheism is a stance taken in my view, not so much being neutral. I would be more comfortable stating that all babies are born Agnostic than saying Atheist.
I quite understand why you see it that way, because the atheists you come into contact with are (If I may use a term I coined myself) 'thinking atheists' in that they have thought it out and indeed their atheism is based on a lot of though and reasoning or at least an angry rejection of theism and everything to do with it.
But atheism as such does not need to have any though at all - absolutely none. It is logically inescapable that not knowing anything other than that your nappy needs a change means that you have no god -belief. You do not need to have decided that, though of course, when people think of atheist, they equate that with people who HAVE decided that or at least aren't convinced or interested.
The logical position is that, if you have no knowledge of God claims so as to have to make a choice, lack of belief is the 'stance' that you hold. The reason that people (mostly theists. but a lot of agnostics and atheists, too) don't understand that is because they believe or have been told that atheism is some kind of rejection of the god -claims.
That is so as soon as the kid is TOLD the god - claims and then either believes or doesn't, but until then non - belief is what it had. It is true that it was agnostic in that it didn't know whether there was a God or not (which is actually the position with everyone, whatever they may claim) and therefore that knowledge position was no more a stance than the resultant belief position of not believing that there either was a god or there wasn't, which is actually all that atheism (in the logical, technical definition) is (1).
I do hope that you understand this but I have a sinking feeling that there's going to be some more typing needed.
(1) and here's some already. Yes, I know that some dictionary definitions claim atheism as belief that gods do not exist and I believe the theist origins of Merriam Webster leads it to speak of denial of God. Dictionaries are useful, but they do, by their very nature, contain common usage which may not always be correct, quite apart from editorial bias.
I quite understand why you see it that way, because the atheists you come into contact with are (If I may use a term I coined myself) 'thinking atheists' in that they have thought it out and indeed their atheism is based on a lot of though and reasoning or at least an angry rejection of theism and everything to do with it.
But atheism as such does not need to have any though at all - absolutely none. It is logically inescapable that not knowing anything other than that your nappy needs a change means that you have no god -belief. You do not need to have decided that, though of course, when people think of atheist, they equate that with people who HAVE decided that or at least aren't convinced or interested.
The logical position is that, if you have no knowledge of God claims so as to have to make a choice, lack of belief is the 'stance' that you hold. The reason that people (mostly theists. but a lot of agnostics and atheists, too) don't understand that is because they believe or have been told that atheism is some kind of rejection of the god -claims.
That is so as soon as the kid is TOLD the god - claims and then either believes or doesn't, but until then non - belief is what it had. It is true that it was agnostic in that it didn't know whether there was a God or not (which is actually the position with everyone, whatever they may claim) and therefore that knowledge position was no more a stance than the resultant belief position of not believing that there either was a god or there wasn't, which is actually all that atheism (in the logical, technical definition) is (1).
I do hope that you understand this but I have a sinking feeling that there's going to be some more typing needed.
(1) and here's some already. Yes, I know that some dictionary definitions claim atheism as belief that gods do not exist and I believe the theist origins of Merriam Webster leads it to speak of denial of God. Dictionaries are useful, but they do, by their very nature, contain common usage which may not always be correct, quite apart from editorial bias.
Well I agree with you here, I think your right in this explanation, I have no problem with it. I can see lack of knowledge not being a stance per say; I understand that.
This is a close one for sure; and I agree with what you said about dictionary's- goes back to how I explained just how dominant religion has been, even influencing dictionary's.
We would have a lingering loneliness that would cause mankind to put all their efforts in finding life on other planets. The desire to seek (life) God would increase- There would be underground movements that would be comprised of secret believers...and worst of all- Human beings of great ego would set themselves up to be god...and we would be forced to worship them.
Once the void opened up with full blown atheism world wide- it would most definitely be filled will all sorts of power mongers who would behave like little gods but outlaw the word god...I would say it would be the realm of satanic entities that would be real irritating until the atheists banned together in rebellion to re-rid the world of these gods.
We would have a lingering loneliness that would cause mankind to put all their efforts in finding life on other planets. The desire to seek (life) God would increase- There would be underground movements that would be comprised of secret believers...and worst of all- Human beings of great ego would set themselves up to be god...and we would be forced to worship them.
Once the void opened up with full blown atheism world wide- it would most definitely be filled will all sorts of power mongers who would behave like little gods but outlaw the word god...I would say it would be the realm of satanic entities that would be real irritating until the atheists banned together in rebellion to re-rid the world of these gods.
Why would we have to wait? We have this now with many countries that are more or less Theocracies now.
Religion has a much larger leg up on power hungry leaders than does atheism.
Religion does nothing to curb the power hungry human. While there have been a handful of atrocities committed by atheist leaders throughout history. They are minuscule in number to acts committed by religious leaders. And the main difference between the two in many cases is the atheist leaders killed to consolidate power. Not in the name of Atheism itself. On the other hand that acts of many religious leaders have been in the name of their religion and nothing more.
It'd be a bunch of nerds in fedoras and cargo jorts arguing about anime and celebrating the year 2100 CE by electing the mummified corpse of Ron Paul to his 22nd consecutive term as president. Imagine reddit coming to life, cornering you at a party, and sharing terrible opinions about things, and you won't be too far off.
Why would we have to wait? We have this now with many countries that are more or less Theocracies now.
Religion has a much larger leg up on power hungry leaders than does atheism.
Religion does nothing to curb the power hungry human. While there have been a handful of atrocities committed by atheist leaders throughout history. They are minuscule in number to acts committed by religious leaders. And the main difference between the two in many cases is the atheist leaders killed to consolidate power. Not in the name of Atheism itself. On the other hand that acts of many religious leaders have been in the name of their religion and nothing more.
Good point...get rid of the religion- including that religion of non-belief and establish a world where God and goodness prevail and are respected. Religious leaders who demand horrific acts to be performed do not believe in GOD...Why is it so hard for atheists to understand that most religious people are also atheists? Few understand that most religions have evolved into atheistic organization and just don't know it yet.
NEVER has an atrocity been committed by a person who believes in God and understands what God is.
It's a tired argument that religion is responsible for all war and atrocities....the fact is as mentioned- atheists reside in most if not all churches and mosques.. All the evidence points in that direction,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
