The Most Effective Argument for Atheism That I've Ever Seen

[rug]

Sep 16 2011, 9:09 AM ET

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCfemmxqaRg&feature=player_embedded

Carl Sagan, with an assist from Darwin:

"Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy of the interposition of a deity," Darwin wrote telegraphically. "More humble and I think truer is to consider him created from animals" We're johnny come lately. We live in the boondocks. We emerged from microbes. Apes are our cousins. Our thoughts and feelings are not fully under our own control. And on top of all of this, we're making a mess of our planet and becoming a danger to ourselves. The trapdoor beneath our feet swings open, we find ourselves in bottomless free-fall. If it takes a little myth and ritual to get us through this. Who among us could not sympathize?

My understanding is that Carl Sagan wasn't an atheist. I'm not either. But this is about the most effective argument for atheism that I've ever seen. It's actually deeply spiritual. Perhaps it's just me, but many of my encounters with atheist remind me of my encounters with the born-again. Indeed I often suspect that the latter was once the former, and is really angry about it.

I don't talk religion much here. But these are my thoughts. I want to be respectful. I'd like comments to follow suit. If you can't talk without driving into the margins, or insulting someone, try not talking. You don't have to speak on everything.

http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/09/the-most-effective-argument-for-atheism-that-ive-ever-seen/245210/

[Indydem]

1. And here is the REAL key to what is being said:

"If it takes a little myth and ritual to get us through this. Who among us could not sympathize?"

If Christians want to believe in sky daddy, how does that affect you? It doesn't.

Atheists find it necessary to engage Christians in debate, tirelessly. They intend to disprove the un-disprovable.

If we all just left each other the hell alone, the world would be a far better place.

[skepticscott]

9. If you really believe

that Christians are capable of leaving everyone else alone, and not trying to impose their irrational and unprovable beliefs on the rest of us, you're very badly deluded. They never have and never will. Hence the need to constantly fight for freedom from legislatively imposed Christianity.

[NMMNG]

21. "If we all just left each other the hell alone, the world would be a far better place."

That's the key. The problem is many Christians are not content to leave others alone. They're commanded by their faith to "spread the word". They try to force it on others with oppressive legislation like restrictions on birth control, abortion and LGBT rights. They impede scientific progress (restrictions on stem-cell research for example). They work to infuse government their religion--funded by the taxpayers of course (National Day of Prayer, monuments to the 10 Commandments, endless "resolutions" about how fabulous and important Christianity is to America, etc) and to oppress minority religions (bans on Shariah Law).

So are atheists, members of minority religions and others affected by this supposed to sit silently by and let it all happen?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

36. My sky wizard can beat up your sky wizard..... n/t

[Goblinmonger]

49. Yeah, I mean Christians have

put their god on my money, make me say/listen to it in the pledge every frickin day, have the president invoke their god in pretty much every speech made ever, and a host of other things.

But, yeah, it's the atheists that are engaging tirelessly.

[Deep13]

91. most religions precluding leaving others alone...

...at the very least they require parents to indoctrinate children. And what my neighbor believes effects me because he (like everyone) will act on those beliefs. If they are irrational beliefs, the effects of acting anthem will be damaging.

[villager]

2. I'm not an atheist either, in that I believe the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

...and in that differential, we have given the name "God" (though "The Great Mystery" works as well)

A lot of atheists, it seems, set themselves up in opposition to the fundie belief that an old bearded white guy is in charge of all destiny.

None of the truly spiritual people I know, or respect, believe that anyway. It's a ludicrous construct of the cosmos....

[valerief]

3. Atheism is the default. You need an argument for anything else. nt

[rug]

4. No you don't.

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801870.html

[valerief]

5. Yes. You do. We're all born atheists. We have to be taught otherwise.

Taught without any proof, btw.

Atheism is the default.

[rug]

6. No. No you don't.

[valerief]

7. Shoo. Scat. You have no proof. Go away. nt

[rug]

8. Sigh.

Show me an infant who denies the existence of God,

Or, show me an infant who asserts the presence of God.

All I can show you is an infant who knows what a nipple does.

Since atheism is an absence of a god, it makes sense only if there is a concept of god in the first place.

A tabula rasa is not a default position.

[laconicsax]

10. That's an interesting definition of atheism.

It's also completely wrong. You don't have to have a concept of what I'm thinking of to not believe in it just as a concept of god isn't needed to not believe in one.

[rug]

12. I'll just call newborns aPlutonians then.

I'll spare them the tragedy of its demotion until they're older.

And you are wrong. To assert the absence or nonexistence of a thing you should at least be able to identify the thing. Assuming of course you want to know what you're talking about.

[laconicsax]

15. Ah, but atheism isn't about asserting nonexistence. It's about non-belief.

Those are different things, you know.

[rug]

16. It's a specific nonbelief, a nonbelief in theism. Otherwise, it would simply be nonbelief.

[darkstar3]

17. Wrong, as usual.

Do you even know why atheism exists as a vocabulary word?

[rug]

18. As usual? This from a guy who sees religious leaders suppporting immigrants to be bigotry?

Are you even capable of posting without letting your surly personality ooze all over your words?

Here's your answer. Go beat your dog before responding. It may improve your posting.

a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

a theos: without god

[darkstar3]

19. Wrong again, because I wasn't the one who even mentioned bigotry.

Having trouble telling the difference between people who disagree with you? There's a word for that, I think.

As for atheism, I didn't ask you the definition, I asked if you knew why we even needed a word to describe the concept. I'll give you a hint: It has to do with the fact that a vast majority of people, for a vast stretch of time, have believed in one god or another, but there has always been one very small group that hasn't.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

26. You don't realize you have proven the point.

Atheism follows theism. And has "for a vast stretch of time".

[laconicsax]

27. The same way no one ever said "not baseball" until after baseball was invented. n/t

[rug]

28. It would be pretty stupid to say it before.

Cricket is not baseball.

[laconicsax]

33. Whoosh!

No one said, "I don't believe in 4-dimensional spacetime" in the 17th century. Does that mean that everyone in the 17th century believed in 4-dimensional spacetime?

[rug]

37. I see you're unfamiliar with dialectics.

[laconicsax]

40. Is that the book by L. Ron Hubbard?

I didn't know you were a Scientologist.

[rug]

42. I'm unsurprised you confuse Hegel with Hubbard.

They do both start with H.

[laconicsax]

46. Oh, you said dialectics. I thought you said dianetics.

Either way, you're still way off base. Whether you're intentionally missing the point or not, your prejudices are showing.

FWIW: if you were doing the same thing you're doing here in, say GLBT, you would be pushing the limits of what constitutes behavior warranting getting banned.

[rug]

51. Weak.

Much as you may want disagreement with your current intellectual conclusion to be deemed the same as the bigotry against sexual orientaion, which does not change as beliefs do, they are not the same at all.

FWIW: calling posters bigots warrants getting banned.

[laconicsax]

59. You said bigotry, not me.

You're also the one refusing to let a minority define itself. It's no different than calling every brown person "Mexican" or "Puerto Rican," insisting that a family doesn't have two mommies or two daddies, or making the kind of sweeping generalization like "black people like _____."

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

86. "Get over yourself and your borrowed ideas"

Good one, rug. Do you mean borrowed ideas like the Christian religion which was borrowed wholesale from other religions?

Speck and plank, rug, and do stay classy.

[darkstar3]

30. There can't be anyone who "doesn't believe in" fairies

until there are people who "believe in" fairies, to paraphrase Darkspouse.

[darkstar3]

29. You don't realize the problem.

The majority labels the minority. That's why Hispanics are referred to en masse as "Mexicans" in TX, "Puerto Ricans" in NY, and "Cubans" in FL. Even though they come from different countries, with different cultures, they have the commonality of skin color, and they get lumped together as one group by the majority.

So how did the concept of atheism even come about? The majority (the story goes that they were Greeks) worshipped household gods, but there were some few and varied people who did not. At some point, when the majority realized that single commonality of non-belief, they came up with a name for it.

So, do you see the problem? You claim that atheism is a "specific non-belief", a polar opposite to theism. You refuse to acknowledge that it is simply a lack of belief, because you fail to recognize that it is the majority who came up with the original concept simply to lump together those who were "other."

It is also the current majority who writes the dictionary, just like the winners write history. Ponder that, will you? And the next time that you feel like repeating the old saw that atheism is an active disbelief (giving you the straw man to knock down with "therefore it requires faith just like mine"), remember that refusing to allow someone to define their own position is a form of intolerance.

[rug]

31. You don't realize the obvious.

The decision to reject household gods and other symbols required two things: one, there hsad to be household gods in the first plce; two, a conscious dfecision to reject them. In short, one had to say "I don't believe x." Believe is a transitive verb, as is its negative.

[darkstar3]

32. You just lost

The state of belief is binary. You either believe in X, or you do not. You just admitted that. So tell me, how is possible for you to believe in a concept to which you have not yet been introduced?

Atheism, for lack of a better term, is the default position, and you just admitted it.

Of course, that's just one part of the conversation taking place here. The other problem is one of definition. You still refuse to acknowledge that atheism is anything other than an active disbelief. The problem with that is that you're shifting what X is in the middle of the debate. You believe in God. I don't. But when I tell you that I don't believe in God, you shift the X and see it as "I believe in no God". I can reject your premise without actively believing in the opposite of your premise. There are four options:

1. Your premise.
2. Not your premise.
3. The opposite of your premise. (Which is technically a new premise.)
4. Not the opposite of your premise.

Of course it turns out that 2 and 4 usually overlap logically.

[rug]

38. Only in the sense that I'm engaging you.

Nevertheless, that is your premise.

Using my own words, not yours, it is not the case that one must believe or not believe. It isthe case that one must assert something before it can be denied or accepted. Since atheism denies god, it necessarily flows from, and after the assertion.

Default positions have nothing to do with it.

1. Thesis

2. Antithesis

Read some Hegel.

[darkstar3]

41. Ok then,

if you think that the state of belief is not binary, then please characterize the third state of belief.

[darkstar3]

58. All these posts and nothing to say here?

Does this mean you cannot offer a third state of belief?

[Goblinmonger]

53. BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ and you lost big time. Don't play English teacher, mmmmkay.

The verb "believe" that deals with religious faith in intransitive. Hence the sentence "I believe" is possible a complete sentence. The transitive form of the verb is the meaning that deals with possibility.

So, I know more than you about both the Catholic church AND grammar. What do you want to try next time.

[rug]

55. Actually you're right about that.

And wrong about whether you know more about either grammar or the Catholic church.

Go for it.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Well, I knew believe was intransitive

despite your bold declaration that it wasn't.

And you were the one that ran scared from minor seminary as a youth. Did you run from an English major, too?

[rug]

61. if the state is paying you, you should.

Oh, and I never ran from the minor semionary, I never even applied. I believe that was you.

I believe you think your English major is some sort of wand. I wonder what that makes my major.

[Goblinmonger]

67. I actually have an English minor

with a Communication major (and Masters). Just to be clear. What my degree and profession does do is make me more knowledgeable than you about grammar. Something you said I shouldn't be so sure about. But it has clearly been demonstrated as being so. Just making sure you are keeping track of the claims you made that I am refuting. Don't want you building any strawmen or dragging herring around.

[rug]

71. Oh bullshit.

I have a major in classics and a law degree. Big fucking deal.

Do you really want to stack up academic credentials in a pathetic appeal to authority? I know you think your attendance at a high school seminary gives you authority on all things Catholic. You've posted it often enough. It doesn't.

I left the high school world a long time ago.

[darkstar3]

73. Like hell you did.

You're still a high school bully at heart. Nothing less, and nothing more.

[rug]

74. You? You are feeling bullied?

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

76. Actually I'm feeling amused at this particular moment.

My point, however, is that I recognize your behavior.

[Goblinmonger]

77. And you know more about that law than I.

Please remember when I said that I know more about grammar than you, it was you that said you doubted that. I would not say that blindly about the law to you even though I did not know until just know that you have a J.D. Because I know that isn't my area of expertise and it might be yours. Your hubris, though, caused you to say that to me. I'm using academic credentials to show that you, actually, don't know everything.

And as to the RCC, I'm still waiting for you to show me how the RCC has abandoned the concept of mortal sin. Because that is some serious bullshit on your part. But what do I know...you have a J.D.

[rug]

79. It hasn't, nor did I say it had.

Read 1854 - 1864 of the CCC.

However, it is not mentioned at all in 2352, which is was your original reference. It appears to take a less blunt view of it than it did in the past. That's why I called it dated language.

[Goblinmonger]

81. I did not reference 2352 specifically.

Masturbation is clearly referred to as a grave matter. Which is the terminology given to mortal sins. Yes, they have backed on from the jerking off gives you hairy palms and a straight ticket to hell by recognizing that kids are just going to do it because they are kids and some people have psychological problems that will cause it to happen. Doesn't mean it isn't a mortal sin for people that meet the 3-prong test of a mortal sin--something I'm sure you are familiar with even though you want to pretend otherwise earlier.

[Goblinmonger]

78. And my seminary background

has provided me with much more background in "all things Catholic" than a great deal of Catholics in this forum and in real life. The number of Catholics that don't think the church believes in transubstantiation is mind boggling. There are even people who believe that mortal sin is "obsolete" even though JPII said that those who die in a state or mortal sin will wind up in hell. I'm sure the current pope changed that, though. He's quite the liberal from what I've heard.

[Goblinmonger]

50. But the theists

have changed their gods myriad times. Atheists say pretty solid in the fact that it's non-belief. Just sayin'.

[dmallind]

101. Now look up "disbelief"

you'll find it means "lack of belief" not "belief in the absence of".

And remember that dictionaries list usages, correct or otherwise. Usages change - meanings do not.

[valerief]

23. +1000

[westerebus]

44. Concept.

What baby's lack is the ability to conceptualize while they are still in the infant stages of development.

That does not make them anything but a-conceptual. Pre gnostic, prior to knowing.

Tabula Rasa. A clean slate.

There is no non belief involved (passivity). Dis-belief, denial of (activity). There is no belief involved.

There is neither passivity or activity attached, as there is no concept to attach to.

What is active is the development of the ego, the self in relation to the environment.

For infants this is the relationship to the caregiver, the mother as life support system.

God does not enter the equation. Infants are secular, they are devoid of a religious state.

The religious state is imposed at the want of the parent(s).

Infants get no choice in the matter.

If the intent is to label infants as atheistic, that would be true in a sense, as they don't believe in anything.

As they do not believe in anything, because they lack the ability to conceptualize in their early stages, they lack knowledge.

So that makes them: Agnostic.

Case in point, when an infant is baptized, they have no concept of what the ceremony or words or god are about.

So while they are now members of that religion, they remain agnostic.

That would make a baptized infant a church member, an agnostic, and as not believing in anything, atheistic all at the same time.

[darkstar3]

45. Gnosticism is about knowledge, theism is about belief,

and therefore the two fields overlap. You can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist. One thing you simply cannot be is just agnostic. It does not, and it never has, constitute a middle ground between theism and atheism, because it in no way deals with the concept of belief.

Therefore, by your own description, babies are agnostic atheists.

[westerebus]

100. Hi, darkstar.

I'm just agnostic.

I don't consider that a middle ground. I'm not really sure why you would consider that position the middle ground?

No matter.

The condition of infants is that they can not conceptualize. It has nothing to do with belief.

Gnos, knowledge, is not part of their internal world.

They are in the process of adaptation and acquiring skills while their bodies grow as cognition develops.

Cognition comes on slowly.

All the while an infant is developing there is no belief going on.

Infants are acquiring person hood. They are developing an ego. A method to differentiate the external from the internal.

That's not about knowledge, it's about memory in the neural network and cognitive function development.

That happens before an infant has the ability to conceptualize.

Language skills appear to affect that ability.

One reason mother's vocalize so much to their infants is to help develop the infants ability to attain language skills.

From what I understand we process concepts in language. There are exceptions to that generality.

As a thinking person do you equate your atheism to that of an infant's inability to conceptualize?

Personally, I don't see how that would hold true.

The idea that by default, the inability to process anything some how bolsters your lack of belief is not very inspiring.

May be I have more faith in your ability to see a difference.

It's getting late, I hope you are well and I look forward to seeing your reply.

[dmallind]

102. So am I. So, I strongly suspect, is darkstar. Both atheistts too though

as far as I can judge. I am more than willing to get darkstar's correction on that.

But regardless of that, agnosticism refers ONLY to epistemology - if and how we can KNOW something. It's a word invented in 1869 by a man, Thomas Huxley, who left extensive writings about what he meant. (what were simple nonbelievers called before that and indeed any time before about 50 yrs ago in the paranoid McCarthyite era when some atheists got a bit windy about using the word, quite rightly in fear for their safety and livelihoods - ah yes, atheists). It is a refutation of gnosis - knowledge by means of mystical revelation (gnosis here in the sense of the gnostic sects, not the Platonist sense). It states simply that we cannot claim certainty from merely intrinsic subjective knowledge. As such I am 100% agnostic - I agree that we can't claim certainty via gnosticism. I am also 100% atheistic - as I have never yet heard any god claims that have sufficient evidence to engender belief - I am without gnosticism, and without atheism. The former is an epistemological stance, the latter ontological.

[westerebus]

103. That would not surprise me.

I think the invention of "agnostic" is net positive in its description of those who finds no solace in the ontological camp.

You may disagree with my interpretation of "agnostic", I wouldn't be offended.

Mine is broader. I just don't know what I don't know. I have an opinion none the less.

I think we are limited in our understanding and our knowledge. I'm of the opinion that will change.

I don't think that change will bring the Theo's of the religious into the presence of humanity.

I do think mysticism and mythology are attempts to explain our link to our spiritual side.

To the belief some things are not understandable given our limitations.

I do share your thoughts on those who impose their limitations on humanity given their religious bent.

There are those who will do their best in their attempts to control humanity in the name of their Theo's.

For McCarthy's communist was an atheist. He may just as well said heretic.

Once accused, the conviction was a formality as the outcome had been predetermined.

The history of tossing atheists onto the fire is well, biblical.

If we were to go back far enough, you and I and dark Star would share the same pyre.

Agnostic, the word, has a broader meaning for me.

It may be I'm too flexible in its use, given this is r/t and all roads lead to Rome, that's a bit problematic for me.

Thanks for taking the time to provide the explanation of your choices.

In my view, I see active atheism as a rejection and refutation of control by religious authority in the guise of government.

Which is why we find each in support of the other as far as I can tell.

I guess it's the socialist in me.

[ZombieHorde]

13. We generally define ourselves as non-believers. Atheism is passive.

Atheists may be aggressive, and in your face, but atheism is passive.

Skepticism is active. Skepticism asks the skeptic to do something; e.g., examine evidence.

Christianity is active. Christianity ask the follower to do something; e.g., acknowledge Christ.

[rug]

14. Classi9c atheism is indeed passive.

But it remains a conclusion, a reaction, to something it considers false or unproven.

Just because Gandhi practiced passive nonviolence, it doesn't mean he had had no notion of the British Empire.

[ZombieHorde]

39. Skepticism is a conclusion; atheism is a state of being.

I think Gandhi practiced active nonviolence - except with his wife. His nonviolence was based on careful calculations.

Infants practice passive nonviolence, and they ideally have no concept of violence. Infants can be atheists, but they can not be skeptics.

[rug]

43. Atheism is an intellectual conclusion, not a state of being.

[laconicsax]

47. When did you come to the conclusion that you don't believe in Amaterasu?

How about Zeus?

When did you come to the intellectual conclusion that you didn't believe in Guan Yin?

Was it around the same time that you decided that you believe in the Abrahamic god? Before? After?

Or is it possible that you never believed in any of the three--that you were an atheist as far as the were concerned?

[rug]

54. Shotly after I learned about them.

I nust have been anamaterasuan all along.

[laconicsax]

60. Based on your own reasoning, you were.

And the religion is Shinto, not "Amaterasuan"

Some intellectual conclusion...:eyes: You don't even know what you're mocking.

[rug]

62. No, that was your reasoning.

You assert we are all born atheist, that being the default position, since we lacked knowledge of a god. Perforce, we were all born anamaterasuan, since we lacked knowledge of the sun goddess as well.

Try to keep up.

[darkstar3]

63. What is the state of your belief in concepts to which you have yet to be introduced?

[rug]

65. Agnostic.

[darkstar3]

66. Read #45. That is not a state of belief.

[rug]

68. You can't have belief without knowledge.

[darkstar3]

70. False.

Belief precedes investigation, which precedes knowledge. That is the entire foundation of the scientific method: I believe something is true, I investigate, and then once I have collected enough information I can know one way or the other.

Gnosticism has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. So I'll ask again, what is the state of your belief in concepts to which you have yet to be introduced?

[rug]

72. Belief is not based on the scientific method.

Consider your premises before repeating stupid questions.

[darkstar3]

75. I used the method as a simple example that anyone might be able to understand.

The fact remains that belief precedes knowledge, and gnosticism has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. You are, de facto, an unbeliever in concepts to which you have yet to be introduced.

[rug]

80. That's plain wrong.

It's impossible to state your belief without first knowing what the hell that belief is. Much different from understanding, let alone trying to prove the belief.

[darkstar3]

82. So tell me what you know about God, and please be sure to cite confirmed facts.

[laconicsax]

85. Which is why atheism precedes theism.

Gosh, rug. You just made the point you've been arguing against.

If you can't believe in something without knowledge, then in the absence of knowledge, you don't believe.

[rug]

89. Is there anything about specific disbelief that is confusing you?

[laconicsax]

90. No, but I think it might be confusing you...

That you're confused is the most straightforward explanation for why you argued against your own position.

[laconicsax]

69. Yes, that is my position. It's counter to yours.

You've argued that you can't disbelieve in something until you've learned about it because disbelief is an "intellectual conclusion." This implies belief as a default state, meaning that you believed in the entire Shinto pantheon until you learned about them.

After all, your own reasoning prevents you from not believing in something until after you've learned of it. I suppose question then becomes why, of the thousands of gods you've simultaneously believed in, do you only worship the Abrahamic one? You've already argued that you can't have possibly disbelieved in any of the others until you learned of them, so it follows that you must have believed in all of them at one time (and probably still believe in most). How could you have made the "intellectual conclusion" to disbelieve in Potrimpo, Lir, or Nusku without first having adequate knowledge of these three gods? I imagine that little rug had trouble not "having any other gods before" the Abrahamic one since he must have believed in a significant number of them.

[rug]

84. You're really not getting this, are you?

Of course it doesn't imply that belief is a default state. It's ridiculous to assert that either belief or disbelief is a default state. Unless a belief is stated and you know ir, you can neither believe or disbelieve it. You don't even know what it is.

However, from what I can peel away from you, your position is that since you lack belief in god, or anything else you've never heard of, from birth, you are an atheist from birth. And you are therefore an a-anything as well. Little laconicsax must have had an energetic childhood sifting through each new belief he encountered.

[laconicsax]

87. You already made my case for me in #68. It's sad that you don't understand how.

You tied yourself up in knots with your absolutely ridiculous position. It's not my fault you're stuck having to defend your own thesis while simultaneously arguing against it.

[ZombieHorde]

48. I think Pentecostals should be able to say what Pentecostalism is all about.

I think Zen Buddhists should be able to say what Zen Buddhism is all about.

I think Sikhs should be able to say what Sikhism is all about.

And I think atheists should be able to say what atheism is all about.

[rug]

56. That might be true if there was an atheist Vatican.

There is divergence of opinion on what atheism is.

Besides, are you saying theists are incapable of discussing atheism? That would be as silly as atheists discussing religion and theology.

[ZombieHorde]

83. I agree there is a divergence

of opinion on what atheism is, but there is also a divergence of opinion on what Christianity is. Which Christian group gets to say what is and what is not Christianity? Should we say only one, or some of the groups have the authority to decide for everyone, or should we say all the groups have the authority to decided for themselves?

Besides, are you saying theists are incapable of discussing atheism? That would be as silly as atheists discussing religion and theology.

I am not saying theists are incapable of discussing atheism, I am saying groups of people have the right to define themselves.

When I was baptized as an infant, I was officially a member of the Catholic Church, even though I had no concept of the RCC. I was both a Catholic and an atheist.

[NMMNG]

52. I was an atheist until I was 8

I was never taken to church or taught about gods until then, so I never believed in any. How did I, from birth to age 8, come to an "intellectual conclusion" about the gods I was never taught about?

[EvilAL]

88. If someone has never heard of god

what would you call them?

[westerebus]

94. Happy?

[rug]

95. Someone who has never heard of god.

[darkstar3]

97. Kludgy to a fault. Surely there's a word that encompasses that concept.

[rug]

98. What do you call someone who has never heard of Brazil?

[darkstar3]

99. False equivalence. No one "believes in" or "lacks belief in" Brazil.

You've gone from abstract concept to geographical fact. Doesn't work that way.

So you're saying there's simply no word in your vocabulary to refer to someone who has never heard of, and thus has no belief in, God?

[NMMNG]

22. Bingo

We're all born atheists--no infant believes in gods. It's not until we're taught to do so (if indeed we are) that we adopt belief in god(s).

[tama]

34. Given the definiotion of atheism

that self-confessed atheists prefere for the meaning of privative a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privative_a), that is indeed the consequense, given the theoretical presupposition of 'tabula rasa'. Equally we could say that we are all born asubjects, aobjects, apersons, a-americans (or what ever nation), a-atheists, a-a-atheists and what ever adefinables, and it is not until we are tought to do so that we start to believe in definitionism.

Of course, the presupposition of 'tabula rasa' should be open to sceptical inquiry and not accepted without questioning. There is also another obvious case for atheistic infants besides the tabula rasa -hypothesis. E.g. supposing that memory of past lives does indeed happen, and supposing that Buddhism is atheistic philosophy(/-religion), in that case Tibetan buddhist tulkus like Dalai Lama are (re)born atheists.

PS: posted this as a new topic, followups preferably there: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x303045

[Deep13]

93. right. nt

[tama]

11. Ehm,

interesting post, but I fail to see how what you say is argument for atheism? Which, sad to say, as observable fenomenon appears to me on this forum mostly as anal retentive definitionism, eristic dialectics devolving constantly into boring sofistry of ad hominems and an axe to grind with the strawman of most idiotic and bothersome forms of Christianity.

Exogenesis or panspermia of life in relation to "Intelligent design" and/or Anthropic Principle weak or strong, alternative states of mind including mathematical creativity and how that leads to various notions of infinities, transcendental numbers, all fascinating math involved in relativity, quantum theory, unificatory theories and theories of all, filosophy of mathematics (platonic realism and/or fictionalism?), etc. etc., fascinating topics to speculate and widen our horizons...

[Jim__]

35. "If we crave some cosmic purpose ..."

If we crave some cosmic purpose, then I'm afraid we won't find it. Ultimately Sagan refuses to face the consequences of his premises. We are one among millions of species, living, effectively, on a speck of dust in the cosmic boondocks. We have no cosmic significance, we have no cosmic purpose.

[Deep13]

92. Carl Sagan was most assuredly an atheist. nt

[rug]

96. Page 2.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801870.html

[Deep13]

104. I don't believe him.

I am not going to accept hearsay from a columnist that goes against everything else I have ever heard Sagan say on the subject of religion. Even if he somehow said it, then it is either out of context. Otherwise, the quote reveals that Sagan himself did not understand what "atheist" means or the state of the evidence and that is pretty unlikely.

[rug]

105. Ah, context.

Since the newspaper is not a court of law, a direct quote is generally quite reliable.

[Deep13]

107. Yeah, context. And since when are newspaper quotes reliable...

....especially when this article was written 10 years after he died? Not 10 years after the interview, mind you--we don't know when that was. Also, the writer does not claim to have conducted the interview. We also don't know for what audience Sagan was tailoring his remarks. When Cosmos first ran in 1980, Sagan never came out and said "And there's no God either." It would have been professional suicide to do so. (He DID say that God was an unnecessary explanation.) He has disclaimed belief for a supernatural god and, like Einstein, said if there were a god it would be the laws of nature. (That's not what "god" means.) His widow has also said that Carl did not believe in god or and afterlife. That is pretty much the definition of atheism. The quote in the article suggests that the definition is certainty that there is none. It isn't. It's lack of belief.

[Taverner]

106. Sagan actually was not an Atheist, but a 'non-theist"

There is a difference, actually