Comments on: No True Atheist

By: Thoughtful

Thoughtful — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:59:30 +0000

If I offended it wasn't the intention, and no I didn't think you were stating that all babies are tiny eight pound equivalents to Friedrich Nietzsche. To me though, it would be more accurate to say that babies are completely indifferent but going off of the definition YOU are using than I guess it would be correct to say that babies are atheists. Again I really don't think that is the most accurate thing to say, but oh well

By: godlessgirl

godlessgirl — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:07:58 +0000

"Atheism is the conscious decision to not believe in a deity." That is your personal definition? Okay, but you are missing the point that I tried to make. We're talking about different types of atheism. There are two : weak and strong. Weak atheism = a lack of belief in a deity. Strong atheism = denial of the existence of gods. This article from Austin Cline summarizes it pretty well. So when you're disagreeing with me, you may be thinking I meant babies are strong atheists because they deny that a god exists. No, of course I didn't mean that. I meant they're atheists by default because they lack a belief in a deity. Babies/children are weak atheists until they make a decision no their own later in life (or are indoctrinated either way).

By: Tweets that mention No True Atheist | Godless Girl -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention No True Atheist | Godless Girl -- Topsy.com — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:18:57 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Global Atheist and GG, JR Buckley. JR Buckley said: RT @godlessgirl: New blog! No True Atheist http://tr.im/DWnK // Good Stuff!! [...]

By: Jorg

Jorg — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:03:46 +0000

I think that is the bone of contention: whether an unconscious lack of belief in any gods can be called "atheism". I mean, babies don't have a concept of God either. But I suppose I agree with you more than not, since we all have an aversion to people calling their children "Christian" or "good young communists", after all.

By: Thoughtful

Thoughtful — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:54:33 +0000

Babies don't have a concept of "themselves", free thought comes much later in the growth process. Atheism is the conscious decision to not believe in a deity. That requires a lot more self awareness than babies have. Even kids (under five) shouldn't apply. Before that time, a kid/baby isn't one or the other. They're just growing up, indifferently happy (when their well fed of course )

By: Jorg

Jorg — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:46:49 +0000

"Upon reflection, what it usually turns out to be is that I've conflated "atheism" with "skepticism" and "rational thinking" (with which it is strongly correlated, but which are not part of its definition). "

Precisely! Religious people do not have a monopoly on stupidity (and, much as it pains me to admit it, atheists do not have a monopoly on intelligence either):) I consider myself a skeptic, first and foremost, and my atheism is a natural corollary of my skepticism. That is not the case for many people, however.

By: mcbender

mcbender — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:08:13 +0000

(My comment was too long, here's the second half)

On the other hand… that is definitely what they're trying to imply. By saying "I used to be an atheist", the believer is playing off of those associations we make with the word "atheist", and trying to make us consider him/her more rational, more skeptical, etc than we might have done otherwise. In that respect, it is important to make the distinction clear and to point out to the person that he/she ought to clarify precisely what was the position which he/she used to hold.

By: mcbender

mcbender — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:07:54 +0000

This has always bothered me too, and I've definitely been guilty of making that argument from time to time. No True Scotsman is very easy to fall into if you aren't careful.

Upon reflection, what it usually turns out to be is that I've conflated "atheism" with "skepticism" and "rational thinking" (with which it is strongly correlated, but which are not part of its definition).

Comparing it to the analogous phrase "I never believed in [Father Christmas/the Tooth Fairy/the Easter Bunny] before, and now I do", it's easy to see that "I used to be an atheist" doesn't imply anything in particular (and certainly not that the person making the statement was a skeptical or rational thinker in any way).

By: The Big Blue Frog

The Big Blue Frog — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:31:23 +0000

I've been guilty of making the same kind of judgment. I think it's just hard for us to understand why someone would, or could, just switch faith back on after it's lost. I think it would take some kind of galvanic revelation for me to believe in any kind of deity, or anything supernatural for that matter. I just have a higher standard of evidence.

Speaking of which, have you seen this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/220296?GT1=43002

When I read this, I thought, "Wow, his definition and my definition of 'evidence' are wildly different."

By: godlessgirl

godlessgirl — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:37 +0000

I think that is partially the point. Lack of belief in a god = atheism. Babies sure are curious, but that doesn't mean they believe in a deity. They're atheists.