OK, I can go be an atheist without going to church and nobody will think I’m a Commie. Like, at all. Nobody will try to convince me to go to their church or make the sign of the cross when I approach or spread rumors that I’m a Satanist. (The first two things happened to me when I came out as an atheist in Southeast Missouri. My brother’s the Satanist, as I’ve mentioned.) So… I don’t need to go to church to avoid being outed and I don’t want to go to church as a form of social club and your church isn’t going to brainwash me into thinking I’m doomed to eternal torment if I fail to go and don’t give them 10% before taxes. Do you see where I have no reason to go, and, if I were currently going, I’d have no reason to stay?
I have nothing against liberal churches, and I wish you happiness in yours. I’m just trying to explain why your kind of church is dying.
Yes, but that term is describing a real thing rather than an idea. Real things exist in the physical world, but ideas only exist in the mind. They continue to exist even if the idea of them does not.
The only reason why the concept of atheism exists is that theism exists. It isn’t that there wouldn’t be a word for it, but that, if no one every believed in God, then there wouldn’t be any underlying concept of not believing in a God. You need the concept of a God before you can have atheism or theism
The analog watch itself existed, but the idea that it was analog did not exist until there was a concept that there could exist things that were not analog.
Not that I think this is remotely profound or useful information. It’s just the nature of ideas. You can’t have a concept of “not red” if you don’t have a concept of “red.” All “atheist” means is “not theist.”
It’s really not that important an idea unless you are into philosophy and are trying to built this to something else. Otherwise, it’s rather irrelevant. It’s not as if this proves one or the other idea is correct, any more than red or not-red is correct.
We don’t traffic in fear, but we do have some expectations - mostly involving social justice (and some sermons convicting folks in the pews of not caring enough about the poor and marginalized around them). That’s why the agnostics in the pews tend to hang around. The mutual support aspect probably appeals to them as well.
I would also counter that a lot of conservatives have left liberal Protestant denominations because they believe we’ve “become Democrats”. Now I don’t know if those outweigh the ones that left because they don’t believe in God and aren’t interested in mutual support through the Church or participating in social justice.
Thank you for having the patience to explain the concept more thoroughly than I did. Atheists wouldn’t exist without theists. Or at least that’s not what they’d be called.
If organizations like the U.S. military, Lloyds of London, HSBC, and others are right (i.e., given reports that they have been publishing for personnel and clients), then there is a strong possibility that the trend will reverse. That is, a combination of diminishing returns and effects of climate change coupled with rising resource consumption per capita and increasing population may lead to limits to growth, and not just lack of access to information.
Actually everyone would have a lack of belief identical to what atheists have - they just wouldn’t have a label for it.
We all lack belief in two-eyed two-horned flying chartreuse people eaters (one-eyed, one-horned, maybe some believe in) but having no label doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lack of belief.
Ideas that only exist in the mind don’t continue to exist if they’re not in anyone’s mind.
Theism is an idea of that sort. Atheism is a lack of that idea. A lack of an idea is not the same thing as an opposition to the idea. And a lack of an idea doesn’t require a mind for it to not be in.
You need the concept of a god before you can have a concept of atheism, yes. That’s why I said we wouldn’t have a word for it.
But you don’t need the concept of a god before you can have atheism itself.
If no one had ever heard of gods, then no one would believe in any god, and everyone would be atheist. That’s what the word means: it means ‘not believing in any god.’ It does not mean ‘opposition to God.’ It does not mean ‘opposition to theists’ or ‘opposition to theism’. Some atheists in the world as it exists are indeed opposed to theists or to theism; but it’s not a necessary part of being atheist.
You’ve just negated your own point. To claim to be an atheist, one must acknowledge that others believe in god/gods. “Theist” is part of the word for crying out loud. If I’ve never contemplated a blue floogeloyd, for example, it’s silly for me to say I don’t believe in them until someone first introduces the concept of blue floogeloyds to me. It’s not that I’m a non-believer; it’s just that I’m unaware of their existence.
She did not negate her own point, and neither did you. A person can match some criteria without having the requisite knowledge to claim that they match that criteria.
Whether some abstract concept ceases to exist when there are no more people who can recognize it is entirely philosophical and without consequence. A person such as you or I looking at a hypothetical society where the concept of gods never existed, looking from the outside in, would describe it as a god-less society.
Perhaps, but we are all arguing about atheism not from the point of view of one who has never heard of god/gods, but just the opposite. We’ve all heard of the concept of god/gods on this board, so atheism for those here is definitely a rejection of theism. No one here can realistically claim to have never heard of the god/gods concept when they make the claim of atheism. Now, individual gods, on the other hand, we may never have heard of, but we’re still familiar with the god concept.
I think I understand what you mean. But the argument still holds; no one can claim to be an atheist if they don’t know what a theist is. Your cat certainly doesn’t.
That’s not at all what we’ve been discussing, though; or, at least, not at all what I’ve been discussing.
What I’ve been discussing is this:
I’ve been saying that, if there were no religion, there’d be nothing but atheists; and that atheism is not in its essence a reaction to theism. It’s the base state, prior to/without any theism.
That’s got nothing to do with the fact that there’s nobody posting on this board who never heard of theism. And it’s an argument in no way countered by the fact that atheists who had never heard of theism wouldn’t bother to go around saying they were atheists. They wouldn’t go around denying they were flloobleflips, either; whether one presumes that there’s no such thing as flloobleflips, or only presumes that they hadn’t heard of flloobleflips. But that wouldn’t mean they weren’t non-flloobleflips.
(To the best of my knowledge, there’s no such thing as flloobleflips. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize to any flloobleflips who may come across this thread, and to all those who are concerned about them. And I really do think I’d better go get some sleep now.)
Hypothetical* time: we finally establish meaningful communication with the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island. At some point, after a good working knowledge of their language gets hammered out and we start moving on to more philosophical matters, a linguist tries to ask them what their word for god is. After much confusion, they (the linguist) concludes (correctly, with complete metaphysical certainty) that the North Sentinel Islanders have no word for god, that no such concept exists in their minds (and believe me, the linguist has tried every way imaginable to ask them how they would define an entity that possesses a litany of godlike characteristics, but the islanders just don’t get why they would have such a word).
Before this linguist explains to them that we have this word ‘god’ in our language and what it is generally taken to mean, would you agree that that the North Sentinel Islanders could accurately be described (not yet by themselves, since they lack the concept, but by you and me, since we do have the concept) as atheists, even though they have no concept of theism, and indeed it never would have occurred to the, that there should be a label for people who lack belief in god or gods?
If not, why not?
*ETA: And believe me, I resort to the hypothetical only as a last resort. I do so hate hypotheticals.
You make good points. I think it’s logical for us to describe them as atheists, but it makes no sense for them to describe themselves as such since they have no concept of what a theist or an atheist is. They would have to be introduced to the concept of god before having the frame of reference to reject it. I think the natural state of all humans, before we’re introduced to religion, is a type of blissful ignorance. But I would not call that atheism, which I think involves a choice of some sort to reject established religion.
If hair had never developed in the world and didn’t exist on any creatures at all, we wouldn’t call people “bald.” We wouldn’t even consider that a concept. We would just think of everyone as “normal,” since everyone would be like that.
They would indeed be “bald,” as we now consider that concept, meaning “hair-less,” but the word would really have no meaning and wouldn’t really develop as a word or even concept.