Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackrabbit]

I don't think they can be called atheists if they lack the ability to actually make the decision.

[Sordid]

I don't think they can be called atheists if they lack the ability to actually make the decision.

What decision? You can't decide to believe in God any more than you can decide to believe that the sky is green. You're either convinced by the evidence or you're not. Conscious choice doesn't enter into that.

[Jackrabbit]

I don't think they can be called atheists if they lack the ability to actually make the decision.

What decision? You can't decide to believe in God any more than you can decide to believe that the sky is green. You're either convinced by the evidence or you're not. Conscious choice doesn't enter into that.

But if you can't actively be convinced by the evidence of either side, or indeed, if you can't even comprehend it, because you are a rock and henceforth not alive by the same definition we are, how could you be either?

EDIT: actually, I misread Ampersands post. He's right, rocks can't have faith that there is or isn't a God, due to being incapable of holding opinions. Thus, they are nothing.

[Sordid]

But if you can't actively be convinced by the evidence of either side, or indeed, if you can't even comprehend it, because you are a rock and henceforth not alive by the same definition we are, how could you be either?

Oh I don't think that just because you can't be one thing then you automatically can't be its opposite either. Circles can never be angular, but they are round. If we accept that atheism is a lack of faith in a deity, then rocks are atheists, since that definition says nothing about actual ability to believe, it only talks about whether or not belief exists.
But yeah, that said, I wouldn't be against restricting the discussion to sentient beings.

[Jackrabbit]

True Dat 

It is, however, an interesting discussion and an enjoyable one because we don't seem to be taking it to seriously. So....

I guess it all depends on the definition of atheism. I've always thought of atheism as almost a religion unto itself (but obviously not an actual religion) because it is the strong belief in the nonexistence of a deity, not just ignoring even the possibility of their being a deity and getting on with life. If this was the case, the rock is not an atheist. If your definition is correct, the rock is. Wow, now my head hurts.

[Ampersand]

The problem is that as soon as an idea is postulated, the people who postulate the idea immediately call those that do not share the idea as Those Who Believe Idea A is false. Ideas, That There Exists A Deity included, are defined by those who hold them, not those who do not hold them.

I do not hold no claim as to whether or not a god exists. I doubt one does, but for all I know, it might be true, specifically because there is as of yet no way to disprove it. But when I take into account all of human history, and the history of the universe as a whole, read ancient books and the like, I begin to understand that all things have some origin point. Before the foundation of any kind of religion or spirituality, when Homo Sapiens Sapiens was just beginning to achieve a semblance of modern sapience, would they have called themselves Atheists?

Of course not. Atheist is a religious label. An outside label, that can be applied to anyone by anyone with any religious attitude. The Romans called the Jews and Christians Atheistic, for failing to adopt the Roman pantheon.

It is not that there is a strong belief among atheists in the non-existence of a deity, it's just that once people come up to you and try to convince you of an idea, and do so frequently with no success, there comes a point where one must defend his or her position.

There exists a teapot in orbit around the sun, between Mercury and Venus. Why don't you believe in it? I just told you it's there. Are you an Ateapotist?

[Jackrabbit]

Ateapotist. Now that's a trend I can get behind.

Sorry, I tend to lose interest in discussions fairly quickly. It's not because you didn't have good points.

[jaked122]

how come you can use the word faggot?

[Ampersand]

Like how you just did?

[ParkEX]

Atheism was here.

Religion is a fag.

[SolarShado]

Here's a thought, and it just might make the world a better place in some small way:

Athiest just means that you don't believe in a god. It's the simple absence of belief/faith.
We need another word for those who actively believe that there is NOT a god. There may be one, but i've never heard it.

It's an important distinction that (to my perception) is often ignored or forgotten.

[Ampersand]

Antitheist?

[ParkEX]

Here's a thought, and it just might make the world a better place in some small way:

Athiest just means that you don't believe in a god. It's the simple absence of belief/faith.
We need another word for those who actively believe that there is NOT a god. There may be one, but i've never heard it.

It's an important distinction that (to my perception) is often ignored or forgotten.

Science? :I Though I know what you mean, I think there aren't never were any deities in this world, and that religion is a very primitive and stupid ideology... but I still call myself an atheist 'cuz it already implies that you do not believe in god, and I think that's enough. Antitheist sounds more like an non-believing extremist.

[inaluct]

:I

:I

[Muz]

1000AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Er, I can't.
RP: God did it, end of discussion.

1800AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Gravity keeps them in balance.
RP: How do you explain how life came about?
Atheist: Er, I can't.
RP: God did it, end of discussion.

1900AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Gravity keeps them in balance.
RP: How do you explain how life came about?
Atheist: By the gradual process of evolution.
RP: How do you explain how atoms stay stable?
Atheist: Er, I can't.

2009AD: blah blah blah.
Atheist: Through electromagnetism and (goes off into a long and extremely boring talk about particle physics)
RP: How do you explain the original creation of matter?
Atheist: Argh, give me another 100 years.

We captured your Occam's Razor flag

“The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."
God did it.

Muz tosses a match onto thread.