Atheism Shouldn't Exist

[thom_cat_]

Why should the word not exist? It serves the purpose of defining a person who rejects religious beliefs. In my honest opinion the idea that such a term should not exist is extremely pretentious and stupid.

Atheists don't reject anything. Atheism, by very definition, is the absence of belief. ANTI-theists reject religion.

I'll use an example someone else just used that sums it up nicely: if religions were channels, Atheism is turning off the TV. Atheists aren't against religion and they don't deny any god exists. Atheists simply aren't in the debate at all. Atheists are the ones in the middle who shrug their shoulders and say "show me some proof."

The perfect example of an Atheist: a baby. Babies don't believe there is no god. Atheists don't believe there is no god. Atheists don't BELIEVE anything.

And that's where all this comes from. See, Atheists don't belong in the religious arena. They aren't arguing anything and they don't have a belief of any kind. While pro and anti-religious people are arguing, Atheists are outside the building, not caring. Why should we label people not involved at all? If Atheism meant believing there is no god, then the title would fit as it is religious (anti-religious, to be exact). But it doesn't. Which is why the analogy of "you don't call a non-sky-diver a name" works. Religion is a choice and the people who don't make the choice to have a belief shouldn't have labels thrust on them. Being Christian or Catholic or Buddhist are choices. Everyone is born Atheist and if everyone is something by default, why does it need a name?

Well, we do, because we argue that there is no evidence to support the side of religion. And so the default belief is non-belief, the rejection of it all. This is still a side, it's not like "i'll stay out of it" it's like "think for a moment and look at the complete lack of evidence supporting your claims"

 

[Gordon Freemonty]

I'm not sure why it really matters, But I do think we should have a word for non-belief, We are a minority after all.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

If your discussion is about the semantic relevance of the word, then I ask you why we have the words man and woman.

If your discussion is about the idea that atheism should basically be a hypernym in semantic constructions, then you're as bigoted as some of the religious folks I know. And I say that as an atheist.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

"you're all stupid, think for a moment and look at the complete lack of evidence supporting your claims"

That's anti-theism. Atheism is lack of belief, not belief in lacking.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

If your discussion is about the idea that atheism should basically be a hypernym in semantic constructions, then you're as bigoted as some of the religious folks I know. And I say that as an atheist.

Lol. Get down off your chair. Atheism is the default state of mind--there's no bigotry in it and it isn't a belief. Babies are born blank slates, void of any beliefs at all and completely outside of the context. They later grow up and CHOOSE to take on certain beliefs. If not believing is the default (and it has to be, as babies cannot physically believe anything), why would we need a word to describe it? Not sky-diving is the default and people who decide to engage in it are therefore sky-divers. You don't call yourself a not-sky-diver, do you?

 

[thom_cat_]

"you're all stupid, think for a moment and look at the complete lack of evidence supporting your claims"

That's anti-theism. Atheism is lack of belief, not belief in lacking.

No it isn't.
It's not a belief in lacking, it's an assertion that because there is no evidence to support a claim then it should be ignored until evidence is provided/found. That's what atheism is. What I was talking about was that. I was not talking about rejecting religion, I was talking about rejecting the claim.

 

[Xifel]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

 

[thom_cat_]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

Nope. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim that there is a god. In the same way you reject the claim that there is an invisible dwarf on your head. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't one there, they're just saying that you have no right to make that claim because there is a distinct lack of evidence.
Basically, atheism is the scientific method applied to the question of a higher power.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

"you're all stupid, think for a moment and look at the complete lack of evidence supporting your claims"

That's anti-theism. Atheism is lack of belief, not belief in lacking.

No it isn't.
It's not a belief in lacking, it's an assertion that because there is no evidence to support a claim then it should be ignored until evidence is provided/found. That's what atheism is. What I was talking about was that. I was not talking about rejecting religion, I was talking about rejecting the claim.

I think we (or at least I) got confused because the thread is so full of the same words in different orders, lol.

Atheism is saying: you can't prove it.

Anti-theism is saying: there is no god and you suck (lol).

I think we agree, just misread some stuff.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods".

No. See above.

Atheists believe nothing (including that there is no god). Atheists are simply saying no one has proven there is a god.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

Nope. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim that there is a god. In the same way you reject the claim that there is an invisible dwarf on your head. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't one there, they're just saying that you have no right to make that claim because there is a distinct lack of evidence.
Basically, atheism is the scientific method applied to the question of a higher power.

Yeah, we definitely agree on the definition, because we just replied to the same post with basically the same words, lol.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Except that people aren't automatically assumed to be an astrologist or alchemist even when nondescript in appearance. Otherwise we'd have to explain to people that we weren't astrologists or alchemists as well when it mattered, or they'd assume we were.

 

[Dr Jones]

We've got the word "sugar-free," and "atheist" is the same thing. Except with God and not sugar.

Pretty much, yeah. Atheism is just a word used to describe another person. Just like sugar-free is there to describe wares that are sugar-free (as perhaps a diabetic could have great use of knowing).

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

You're just not thinking properly.

The majority is religious. So of course there needs to be an identifier for those of us who aren't. Logic and reason has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't matter what the majority is NOW. We are all born Atheist and later CHOOSE to believe certain things (that there is a god, that there are lots of gods, that there is no god, etc., etc.). The default state of being is Atheism--so why is there a word to describe it? It seems odd in my eyes that we need a title to describe the norm in this context. I'll use the example again: everyone is born not a skydiver; some people later choose to skydive and are thus skydivers. You don't call yourself not a skydiver, do you? No. Because it's normal.

Being Atheist is normal (it's physically impossible to be born believing in a god). Choosing to be religious is just that-a choice.

 

[hawkeye52]

The reason for this is because Atheism represents a group of people and flows a lot better then the "People who do not believe a god exists" group

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

The reason for this is because Atheism represents a group of people and flows a lot better then the "People who do not believe a god exists" group

Atheists don't believe no god exists. Atheists assert that no one has proven a god exists. There could be a god. There could be lots of gods. No one has proven it.

Atheism is lack of belief, not the belief of lacking.

 

[Something Amyss]

If you still don't get it: Atheism can only exist in a world where people are expected to be religious by default--a.k.a.: a fucked up world--and need to inform others otherwise.

Yes, the world is fucked up.

Yes, religion is the default expectation because most people are religious.

So...?

 

[Xifel]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

Nope. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim that there is a god. In the same way you reject the claim that there is an invisible dwarf on your head. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't one there, they're just saying that you have no right to make that claim because there is a distinct lack of evidence.
Basically, atheism is the scientific method applied to the question of a higher power.

Yeah, we definitely agree on the definition, because we just replied to the same post with basically the same words, lol.

OK, then I get it. To be honest I haven't put enough thought into it. I know maybe a total of 10 religious people, 2 of them are priests. I'm actually thankful to live in a country where non-believers are the default. Although sometimes it is to much to in that direction. People sometimes feel that they don't want to "come out of the closet" as religious, and I truely believe that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want (as long as they are not hurting anyone).

But could you define "agnostic" for me, since I sort of mixed up the concepts here...